Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Commercial Gas Bill,

As amended, considered.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy Chairman.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

South Suburban Gas Bill,

As amended, considered.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy Chairman.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Welwyn Garden City Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (LOANS).

Sir CYRIL COBB: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the League of Nations that loans issued under the League's supervision should in future be provided by member Governments of the League of Nations and not raised here by public subscription, so that the cost of the financial reconstruction and refugee resettlement of Europe may not fall on the private British investor?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I am not prepared to adopt my hon.
Friend's proposal. There is no justification for the cost of financial reconstruction and refugee settlement falling either on the taxpayers of the States which are members of the League of Nations or on the private investors who have chosen to subscribe to, or purchase, the loans in question. On the contrary, it is essential that the obligations undertaken by the borrowing countries should be punctually discharged, or, where a temporary default has occurred, that full payments should be resumed and any arrears of payment made good at the earliest possible date.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Would it not prevent misapprehension if my right hon. Friend warned the authorities of the League of Nations that any attempt again to raise loans under the supervision of the League here from private investors would probably fail?

Sir J. SIMON: I think the circumstances are very present to the minds of all concerned.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 1.
(for
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the League of Nations that the contractual redemption schemes of loans issued under the supervision of the League shall be operated, in view of the advantage to the borrowers arising from the low prices at which the loans can be repurchased for redemption?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. As for my hon. Friend's suggestion, I can only say that the concern of His Majesty's Government is to secure that the contractual obligations in respect of loans issued under the League of Nations, both in respect of interest and in respect of sinking fund, should be integrally carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CONSULAR OFFICE, COLOGNE.

Mr. PERKINS: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that last Thursday afternoon a British subject was unable to get assistance from the British Consul at Cologne owing to the office being closed; and whether he will make arrangements for this office to remain open until 5 p.m. on Thursday afternoons?

Sir J. SIMON: I have heard nothing about the incident referred to by my hon. Friend. The hours during which Consular offices are open to the public follow, as a rule, the local business hours. When the office at Cologne is closed, persons requiring assistance can apply to the Consul-General at his private residence, the address of which is posted up outside the door of the office. In these circumstances, I see no need for arranging for an extension of office hours as suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. PERKINS: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of persons employed in His Majesty's Consul's office at Cologne and the total annual cost to this country?

Sir J. SIMON: There are six persons employed at this post. The total net cost of the post is now at the rate of £4,490 a year.

Mr. PERKINS: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for at least one of these six people who are employed at this post to be on the telephone?

Sir J. SIMON: I need not say that I wish to see all proper arrangements made. As I have told my hon. Friend, I have no previous information about the facts here, and therefore I would ask him to be good enough to inform me to what the incident is to which he refers.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Would it not be possible to dismiss three of these people now that the country is so hard up?

Sir J. SIMON: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend who makes that suggestion realises that this is the biggest Consulate in Germany and one at the head of which is the Consul-General.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that the Consul service at Cologne is very efficient and renders very efficient service to this country?

Sir J. SIMON: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say so.

FOREIGN OFFICE (CHINESE CONSULAR REPRESENTATIVE).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for how long the present representative of the Chinese Consular Service
has been attached to the Foreign Office: and for what period his immediate predecessors were so attached?

Sir J. SIMON: There are at present two members of His Majesty's Consular Service in China working in the Foreign Office. One has been specially attached since October, 1925, in connection with the various negotiations with the Chinese Government and has thus worked in the Foreign Office for 6½ years. The other, who is attached in accordance with the long standing practice referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend in his question of the 30th of May, has worked in the Foreign Office for one year and eight months. His immediate predecessors worked respectively for nine months, three years nine months and nine months.

Sir A. KNOX: Does the Foreign Secretary not think it advisable to send out this official, who has been at the Foreign Office for 6½ years, in order that he may gain some first-hand knowledge of the present conditions in China?

Sir J. SIMON: From my own knowledge I can say that the official referred to is extremely competent, and we think his retention is in the public interest.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that this official is out of touch with the feeling of British residents in China?

ADMIRALTY.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can undertake to reduce within six months the 1,366 members of the clerical staff to 829, as at August, 1914; and, if not, will he allow three Members of the House, nominated by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committees, to test the staffing while the merger of the Secretary's and the Accountant-General's Departments is in progress, and so bring about an early reduction to not more than 829?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): No, Sir, it is impossible for the Admiralty to revert to the staffing of 18 years ago unless the functions of the Department can also be restricted to those of 1914, which would involve inter alia the scrapping of legislation, international treaties, scientific developments and inventions, and the higher standard of naval conditions obtaining to-day. As regards the latter part of the question, I am afraid I cannot
agree to the proposal that the three Members of this House who have been nominated in the ordinary constitutional manner to administer the Admiralty-should hand over that duty to three Members of this House nominated by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committees.

Sir C. CAYZER: In view of the fact that the staff of the Admiralty now appears to be one-third larger than in 1914, although the personnel of the Navy is 60,000 less, can the First Lord hold out any hope that there will be further substantial reductions in personnel this year?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I can assure my hon. Friend that no one is more anxious than I am to reduce the staff to the lowest limit. If the question standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. West Russell) had been asked, I was going to state that I would circulate a statement explaining, I think very well, why an additional staff is necessary to-day; and I hope my hon. Friend will read that answer.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Would not some amelioration result if the system of filing correspondence and the receipt and issue of letters were looked into at the Admiralty?

SALARIES AND BONUS.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the discussions of the National Whitley Council on the future basis of remuneration of the Civil Service?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The representations of the staff side are still under the consideration of the Government, and my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any further statement on the matter.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ask his chief, in deciding this matter, to take into account the fact that the House of Commons has already passed a resolution in favour of equal pay, and that therefore it ought to be the subject of discussion without any question whatever?

Major ELLIOT: Yes, Sir.

DANUBIAN COUNTRIES (ECONOMIC RESTORATION).

Mr. HANNON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any further statement in relation to the proposed Danubian Federation?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 11th of April, since the exchange of views between the Four Powers is not yet complete.

Mr. HANNON: Would my right hon. Friend indicate to the House when he thinks some conclusion will be arrived at on this question, having regard to the unfortunate plight in which all the Danubian countries now find themselves?

Sir J. SIMON: The present situation is that some of the Four Powers have communicated to the others their views, but the remaining Powers have not. I think I must get all their views assembled together before we can very well make a statement.

DRUG TRAFFIC.

Mr. HANNON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the work undertaken by Russell Pasha, director of the Narcotics Intelligence Bureau in Cairo, for the suppression of opium and other drug traffic in Egypt and the Near East?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. The Narcotics Intelligence Bureau in Cairo is a Department of the Egyptian Government, and I cannot therefore make a statement on the progress of the work undertaken by its director.

EGYPT.

Mr. HANNON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement of the existing relations between Egypt and this country and on the progress in Egyptian economic development; and if the expansion of British trade in Egypt is receiving the continued support of His Majesty's Government?

Sir J. SIMON: With regard to the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I returned to
the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on the 17th of February. With regard to the second part, the progress of Egyptian economic development is dealt with in the periodical reports of the Commercial Secretary to the Residency; the last published report was issued in July, 1931. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether in point of fact under the present regime the relations between this country and Egypt have considerably improved?

Sir J. SIMON: I am very glad to say that the relations are satisfactory.

NEWSPAPERS (FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE).

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation making it a penal offence for the Press to circulate unfounded rumours or statements calculated to embitter the otherwise friendly relations between different States, such as the report recently published in one of the English papers that Poland, in pursuance of a plan to occupy Dantzig, was concentrating troops in the neighbourhood of that city?

Sir J. SIMON: While I appreciate the object which my hon. Friend has in view, I do not consider, as at present advised, that there are sufficient grounds to justify me in recommending the Government to introduce legislation as suggested in the question.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rumours to which I make reference in my question are utterly unfounded and might have led to incidents between two countries which might ultimately have resulted in war; and are we to understand that the British Government are powerless to deal with incidents of that kind?

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will appreciate, I am sure, that he is suggesting that legislation should be intro-
duced and that would raise the difficult question as to whether we really could, in an English court, try the truth or otherwise of rumours all over the world, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the case to which he refers is a very serious one, and my attention has already been called to it.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Will my right hon. Friend see that the newspaper which has published these reports also gives equal prominence to the denial of those reports which are absolutely unfounded.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: You have your hands full.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SUBMARINES (SALVAGE EQUIPMENT).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is satisfied that the equipment provided in our home ports for the salvage of submarines that meet with an accident in moderate depths of water is as efficient as possible.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The equipment provided is considered to be efficient for the purpose. The salvage operations now being carried out on "M/" are providing valuable information and experience. The whole question of submarine salvage will be reviewed after "M/" has been raised, in the light of the experience so gained.

Mr. THORNE: Is not the surest way of preventing accidents to submarines for all countries to prohibit them altogether?

FISHERY PROTECTION.

Mr. DREWE: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty at what intervals in the past year a fishery cruiser has patrolled between Portland and the Isle of Scilly; and how many cases of illegal trawling have been reported in these waters during the past 12 months?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Fishery protection vessels have patrolled in this area 99 times during the past 12 months. Two cases of illegal trawling within territorial limits were reported and in each case a conviction was obtained. In addition, one foreign vessel was convicted of fishing in prohibited waters.

YANGTZE RIVER (BRITISH FORCE).

Mr. PEARSON: 14 and 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) what is the number and strength of the British flotilla on the Yangtze River;
(2) what defence force is available on the Yangtze River for the protection of British subjects at Hankow?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The strength of the British flotilla on the Yangtze River is 12 gunboats, of which two are normally at, or near, Hankow. In addition to this flotilla, it is the present policy to maintain one cruiser at Hankow throughout the year.

WELFARE CONFERENCE.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will issue instructions for naval ratings attending Devonport as representatives at the Inter-Port Welfare Conference to be placed on lodging and provision allowances for the duration of the conference?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No, Sir. No reason is seen for any exception to the rule that ratings sent on duty to a naval port should be accommodated in the Royal Naval Barracks.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has now come when the question of abolishing the Welfare Conference might be considered?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The question whether something more practical and better can be found as a substitute for the Welfare Committee is now under consideration.

ASCENSION ISLAND (LAVA CONCESSION).

Mr. MOREING: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give particulars of the amount of lava removed from Ascension Island by the St. Helena Colony Development Company, Limited, under the concession granted to them in 1927; the sums received in payment for the lava; and the purposes for which the lava has been purchased and removed from the island?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have no exact information as to the
amount of lava removed by the company from the island. Under their agreement the company are required to pay a royalty of 20s. per ton of lava shipped, subject to a minimum of £1,000 a year. I understand that the payments actually made up to date amount in all to £4,500. With regard to the last part of the question, the purposes for which the lava is to be used are not specified in the agreement, but I understand that it is in fact being treated with a view to the extraction of gold.

Mr. MOREING: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a company called the New Process Company, Limited, with works at Southall, Middlesex, claims to have extracted large amounts of gold from this lava?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I was not aware of that; but I should like to make it plain that, so far as the relations of the Government of St. Helena are concerned, their relations with the company are to give them a concession to take lava. There is no guarantee by the Government of St. Helena as to what the lava contains.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (TRADE UNION PUBLICATIONS).

Mr. WALLHEAD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a periodical publication called "The Negro Worker," and all other publications issued by the International Trade Union Committee of Negro Workers, have been prohibited by proclamation in Trinidad and Tobago; and, seeing that these publications circulate freely in Britain and in other parts of the Empire, including other West Indian islands, will he say what is the reason for their being prohibited in Trinidad?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The importation into Trinidad and Tobago of "The Negro Worker" and all other publications issued by the International Trade Union Committee of Negro Workers, of Hamburg, Germany, was prohibited by a proclamation of the Governor dated the 14th April, 1932. The matter is one properly within the discretion of the Governor of the Colony, and I see no reason to question the propriety of his action.

Mr. MAXTON: Why does the right hon Gentleman allow the Governor of thi3 particular Colony to act differently from the Governors of other Colonies; and why should the negroes in these particular islands be denied the right to organise in trade unions, as they do in other places?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: They are not denied the right to organise in trade unions, but the Governor is the right person to decide whether documents issued from alien sources outside the islands should enter the Colony.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if every international organisation which does not happen to have its headquarters in Great Britain is to be regarded as an alien organisation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In point of law, any organisation which was outside Great Britain would be an alien organisation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The League of Nations?

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

NATIVE PRODUCE (MARKETING).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information regarding the invitation by the Nairobi Chamber of Commerce to the Kenya Government to constitute a board which should frame a policy for the improvement of commercial methods in native areas?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I assume that the question refers to resolutions passed at a meeting of the Nairobi Chamber of Commerce on the 17th March last. No communication regarding these resolutions has yet been received from the Governor, who is, no doubt, considering them in connection with the general question of the marketing of native produce.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care, if any such policy is framed, that the interests of the natives and of the Indian traders are taken into consideration?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that the whole point of the ques-
tion is directed to the better marketing of native produce, and that, neutrally, would involve such interests.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then it is not a question of confining trade with these areas to white traders?

PROSPECTING LICENCE.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information regarding the proposal of the Government of Kenya to grant to a mining company an exclusive prospecting licence over an area of 5,900 square miles; whether any objections have been lodged against this grant; and whether any arrangements were made in the draft agreement for the safeguarding of native interests?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Government of Kenya announced on the 19th March that it had under consideration the issue of an exclusive prospecting licence (which had been applied for by Tanganyika Concessions, Limited) over an area of approximately 5,900 square miles in Nyanza Province. A period of three months expiring on the 19th June has been allowed for lodging objections. A number have already been received, and these, with any other objections that may be lodged, will, in accordance with the usual procedure, receive due consideration before any decision is taken. I have no knowledge of any draft agreement, but in regard to native interests I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the 24th of February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (EAST LONDON).

Major NATHAN: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport the position as to the projected electric railways from Liverpool Street via Bethnal Green to Ilford and beyond?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the question on this subject asked by the hon. and gallant Member on the 18th November last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Major NATHAN: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has just stated that it is contingent upon the passing of the London Passenger Transport Bill, may I ask him if he can give any indication as to whether that Bill is likely to be passed?

Mr. PYBUS: I understand that a statement is to be made on that subject to-morrow.

Mr. THORNE: Is the Minister aware of the excessive overcrowding on this line; and would not that overcrowding be obviated if the line were electrified?

LIVERPOOL-MANCHESTER ROAD.

Mr. TINKER: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is in a position to state when the new East Lancashire road, Liverpool to Manchester, will be completed and in use for traffic; and will he say what portion is in use now?

Mr. PYBUS: The Lancashire County Council anticipate that the road will be completed by March, 1933; approximately 12 months in advance of the stipulated time. A length of two miles within the city of Liverpool is now in use, and it is expected that 12 miles in the county area will be available for traffic within six months.

EDINBURGH-GLASGOW ROAD.

Mr. GUY: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport the reason for the continued delay in the completion of the new Edinburgh-Glasgow road?

Mr. PYBUS: This scheme, which is of exceptional magnitude, suffered delay in its earlier stages owing to complicated negotiations regarding the bridges, etc. The little work still remaining to be done is progressing rapidly, and should be completed during the present summer.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that a good deal of the hold-up in connection with this road is due to the fact that the engineer-in-charge is carrying out other work while he is a Government servant?

Mr. PYBUS: No, Sir; I have no confirmation of that statement.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Could not the hon. Gentleman give, in reply to the main question, the reason for the excessive delay in this matter? It is true that it
is a big scheme, but, as compared with the Manchester-Liverpool road, the delay has been excessive.

Mr. PYBUS: In my answer I stated that the delay in the earlier stages was due to complicated negotiations regarding bridges. I do not think that that has anything to do with the engineer-in-charge.

MOTOR VEHICLES (MECHANICAL FITNESS).

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the large number of road accidents resulting from the presence on the roads of defective motor vehicles, he will consider the advisability of making regulations to ensure that all motor vehicles are periodically inspected by qualified motor mechanics and certificates of fitness obtained after such inspection?

Mr. PYBUS: The proportion of accidents on roads due to mechanical defects is not large, and I have not hitherto exercised my powers under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to make regulations for the inspection of brake and steering gear. I have no power to require that certificates of fitness should be obtained for vehicles other than public service vehicles. A systematic inspection such as that suggested by my hon. Friend could only be carried out at great expense.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Is it not possible that something might be done with a view to having a certificate of fitness produced at the same time as the certificate of insurance is produced to the licensing authority?

Mr. PYBUS: That would involve a very costly system of inspection which I should not care to impose.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.

LEATHERHEAD UNDERTAKING (PURCHASE).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the approval of his Department was obtained by the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority for its purchase for the sum of £312,640 of assets belonging to the Leatherhead and District undertaking standing in the books of the latter at £230,148?

Mr. PYBUS: The consent of the Electricity Commissioners was given to the
acquisition by the joint authority of the Leatherhead undertaking as a going concern, after they had satisfied themselves that the price in the circumstances was reasonable.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister discourage this authority from going beyond its proper judicial functions and acting as a trading body?

STREET BOXES.

Mr. MACLAY: 26
for
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether, in view of modern developments in the technique of electrical distribution and the increased importance of communication by road, he will undertake a review of the existing law as regards the distribution of electrical current and the relations between electricity undertakers and road authorities with a view to bringing the law up to date;
(2) whether he is aware that street boxes and sub-stations have been placed in and under streets and roads in this country without any payment by the electricity undertakers to the owners of the ground; and whether he will amend the law so that the provisions of the law relating to poles carrying electrical cables shall apply to these street boxes;
(3) if any limit is imposed by his Department to the size of street boxes and sub-stations used for the purpose of distributing electricity above and below ground; and, if not, will he consider an amendment of the law so that some limit may be fixed?

Mr. PYBUS: Authorised undertakers are entitled, under the existing law, to place street boxes in or under public highways without payment, and no limit is imposed as to the size, but the road authority has a veto on the erection of street boxes above ground. When the Electricity (Supply) Bill of 1926 was before Parliament an amendment of these provisions was discussed but was rejected, and I do not contemplate the introduction of legislation on the matter.

CENOTAPH.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 31.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he
will consider the affixing to the base of the Cenotaph in Whitehall, or to the stone below and around it, or to some prominent place in its neighbourhood, of one of the coloured armorial plates containing a summary of the casualties sustained by the British Empire, such as have already been affixed in French cathedrals and other places?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Unless public opinion is very generally expressed, I am afraid that I cannot support my hon. Friend's suggestion for adding any further ornament or inscription to the Cenotaph as I should be reluctant to do anything that would detract from the simplicity of this memorial.

INDIAN ARMY (INDIANISATION).

Sir C. OMAN: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, among the units of the Army in India which have been selected for Indianisation, there are, or are about to be, any units stationed east of the River Indus; and, if so, what are the designations of those units?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): Yes, Sir; at the moment seven. Their designations are the 3rd, 7th and 16th Cavalry, the 2nd Madras Pioneers, the 2nd/1st Punjab Regiment, the 5th/6th Rajputana Rifles and the lst/14th Punjab Regiment.

ADEN (DISTURBANCES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many of the 60 casualties at Aden were Jews and how many Arabs?

Sir S. HOARE: Twenty-five were Jews. It is not stated in the telegraphic reports received whether the others were all Arabs. A report on the disturbances is expected shortly by mail. Meanwhile, the Chief Commissioner telegraphed on 30th May that the situation was normal.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the suggestion of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) the other day that it was the Arabs who attacked the Jews, will the right hon. Gentleman in his answer next week deal with that side of the question?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, certainly, but I am not sure that I shall have the answer by next week.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we have the casualties on each side?

Sir S. HOARE: As far as possible, but I cannot say whether I shall have them by next week.

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. MOLSON: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the question of increasing the labour content required to qualify for Imperial preference goods imported from the Dominions will be discussed at Ottawa; and whether the British Government accepts the view that 75 per cent. is an equitable figure of such content?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 24th May by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie).

Mr. HANNON: Will not the question be raised at Ottawa as to the increase of British manufacture in the production of articles entitled to preference in this country?

Mr. THOMAS: It is of such importance that the last Imperial Conference unanimously agreed to have a full investigation into the matter, and it is now being investigated.

Mr. LAMBERT: What would be an equitable percentage of preference to give in this case?

Mr. THOMAS: It would be impossible to say that, because you have to consider the reactions on the other side. For instance, if you were dealing with cotton goods, what would be the proportion when it was known in advance that the greater part of the raw material must be bought outside the Empire? That is only an indication of the difficulty.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

RURAL TELEPHONE EXCHANGES.

Lord SCONE: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of rural telephone
exchanges, how many of them are rural automatic exchanges, and how many have fewer than 50 subscribers, with separate figures for Scotland?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): There are in all 3,582 rural telephone exchanges. Of this number 740 are of the automatic type, and 2,734 have less than 50 subscribers. The figures for Scotland are 606, 121 and 556, respectively.

WAGES.

Mr. RAIKES: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can state the maximum wage of country postmen, including bonus at existing rate?

Mr. G. WHITE: The present maximum wage of country postmen, including bonus, ranges from 61s. 9d. a week at towns on the outskirts of London to 55s. a week at small country towns or villages.

Mr. RAIKES: 37.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can state the maximum wage of London sorters, including bonus at existing rate?

Mr. WHITE: The present maximum wage of London sorters, including bonus, is 92s. 6d. a week.

MOTOR OMNIBUSES (POSTING BOXES).

Mr. RAIKES: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can state the approximate number of motor omnibuses which are now fitted with posting boxes?

Mr. WHITE: Up-to-date figures are not available, but the number of boxes is approximately 600. If the hon. Member has any particular locality in mind, my right hon. Friend will have inquiry made.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 40.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can state the number of widows who have lost their pensions because the deaths of their husbands took place more than seven years after their Army discharge; and whether he proposes to abolish the seven-years limit?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension. The widow of
a pensioner would not be refused on the ground stated as her case is expressly provided for under the Royal Warrant of 14th January, 1924. No amendment of the Royal Warrant is in contemplation.

Mr. MACLEAN: If I send the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a case where the widow has lost her pension on this ground, will he consider it?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member sent me a case and it was not rejected under the seven-years limit. If he has any other case, I shall be happy to go into it.

Mr. MACLEAN: In the case I sent the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the date of the dead man's final discharge is still under dispute.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that the Prime Minister gave a pledge in 1929 that he would abolish the seven-years limit, could not the Government undertake to carry out the pledge?

Major TRYON: The seven-years limit was abolished by the Conservative Government in 1924 for all pensioners' widows. In these circumstances, a promise given in 1929 to abolish it would not be operative, as it had already been done.

FLOODS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the engineer's report on the flooding in the Doncaster drainage area is now available; and will he state what remedial measures are contemplated to avoid any repetition of the present disaster?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I have received reports from the officers of my Department as to the flooding which has taken place in the neighbourhood of Doncaster, as well as in other parts of the country. The Drainage Authorities concerned are actively considering the question of remedial measures, and any assistance in these deliberations which the officers of my Department can give will be at the disposal of the Boards concerned.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Ouse Catchment Board meeting frequently?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My officers are in close touch with these bodies at present.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that many farmers in the Fishlake, Sykehouse and Thorne areas have lost their crops through flooding during the last three years; and will he state whether any financial assistance has been or will be paid by the Government to those farmers who are ruined in this way?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the position described by the hon. Member, but I regret that I am unable to hold out any hope of financial assistance from the State.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that, although these fanners for three successive years have lost almost the whole of their crops, it is impossible for the Government to assist them to continue their farming?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not say that, but it is clear that the Government have no money that can be allocated for this purpose.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If any application were made for credit facilities, would the Government assist them in that direction?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is very unlikely that such a scheme could be made workable.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the recent flooding in different parts of the country, he will take steps to enlarge the existing statutory powers so as to prevent future flooding, not only to protect life and property, but to provide work for large numbers of the unemployed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The catchment boards constituted under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, have ample powers to deal with the position referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions to these catchment boards to put their statutory powers into operation to prevent further flooding?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is not my province to issue instructions, but I am in close touch with the bodies who have power under the Act.

Mr. MACLEAN: Since the right hon. Gentleman is in close touch with them, will he give a little push with the touch?

CUSTOMS DUTIES.

Major NATHAN: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the change over of this country from Free Trade to Protection, whether he proposes to introduce legislation to consolidate and amend, with a view to bringing it up to date, the law relating to duties of Customs?

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot at the present time make any statement as to the possibility of amending and consolidating legislation, which would in any case be premature till further experience has been gained.

GOVERNOR OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Mr. MAXTON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now provide facilities for the discussion of the Motion on the action of the Governor of New South Wales—
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying for the recall of the Governor of New South Wales, on the ground that Ms action in dismissing the Prime Minister of New South Wales is contrary to the public interest and an affront to the democracies of Great Britain and the Commonwealth of Australia.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that I am unable to provide the facilities desired by the hon. Member.

Mr. MAXTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to whether the Governor of New South Wales was acting constitutionally when he took the drastic step of dismissing a demoeratically-elected Government?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think the action was perfectly constitutional, but that is not a matter to be dealt with by question and answer. The question can be raised, as an old experienced Member of the House like the hon. Member knows, in the course of Parliamentary Debate in certain circumstances without special time being found for it.

Mr. MAXTON: I have done my very best to get questions on the Paper and
find it impossible under the Rules of the House to get them over the Floor. I have put a Motion on the Paper, which is the recognised method. Now you tell me of some other procedure. I am quite unaware of it in spite, as you kindly say, of my long Parliamentary experience.

Mr. BALDWIN: It is hardly for me to advise Members on a subject which is so simple. The hon. Member can find out, I am sure, by applying to Mr. Speaker, within what limits a question can be asked and how much further it can be raised on the Secretary of State's Vote.

Mr. HANNON: In point of fact, has not the action of the Governor in this case the approval of the whole of the people of Australia?

Mr. MAXTON: Have the whole of the people of Australia the right to suspend the British Constitution?

INCOME TAX.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the committee inquiring into the taxation of co-operative societies will confine its sittings to London or visit various parts of the country; and whether it will hear evidence from individual societies or from organisations of co-operative societies?

Major ELLIOT: This is a matter for the committee itself to decide.

Mr. LEONARD: 48 and 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1), what is the total estimated number of persons who will actually be chargeable to Income Tax in the present financial year;
(2), how many persons who formerly received exemption from any payment of Income Tax by reason of abatements and allowances have been brought into the field of taxation by the recent reductions in such abatements and allowances?

Major ELLIOT: I am not yet in a position to furnish final estimates of the changes made in the numbers of taxpayers by reason of the recent alterations in the graduation of the tax, but it is provisionally estimated that the number actually paying tax is between 4,000,000 and 4,250,000 of whom about 2,000,000 are persons who did not previously pay tax.
I cannot at present subdivide the 2,000,000 new payers to show how many were previously exempt by reason of allowances and how many were previously exempt by reason of their incomes being below the effective exemption limit.

Mr. LEONARD: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state for each of the five financial years from 1924–25 to 1930–31 the amount received from Income Tax levied upon interest received by individuals from shares in cooperative societies?

Major ELLIOT: I am unable to furnish any figures for the tax on the interest in question since it is not recorded separately from other sources of income in the Income Tax statistics.

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. LANSBURY: by Private Notice
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what is the present position in regard to the International Economic Conference which, according to the Press, is favoured by the Government of the United States of America?

Sir J. SIMON: Within the last few days conversations have taken place between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States on the suggestion that an International Economic Conference should be called to consider methods to stabilise world commodity prices. The matter has not advanced beyond an informal and entirely preliminary stage—so much so that the opportunity of consulting the other Governments chiefly concerned has not yet arisen. It has to be remembered that the terms of reference for the Conference at Lausanne include among the objects to be sought not only a settlement of reparations but agreement on the measures necessary to solve the other economic and financial difficulties which are responsible for, and may prolong, the present world crisis. Unless, therefore, the United States send representatives to the second part of the Lausanne Conference there is a danger of overlapping, and questions of time and place would remain to be considered, even if a yet further conference were decided on. At the same time, the importance of United
States co-operation in such a discussion is so great that His Majesty's Government are losing no time in consulting the other Governments who will be assembled at Lausanne as to the suggestion which has been made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Coal Mines Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Amendments to—

Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords],

Bridgwater Corporation Bill [Lords],

Rhyl Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES BILL.

Order for Committee read.

Mr. SPEAKER: In regard to the Instructions which have been put upon the Paper, the first one in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape)—
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions for the appointment of workers' representatives to the central council and executive hoards established under Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930.
is not in order, nor is the last one in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall):
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert a provision empowering the Board of Trade to make orders to ensure the maintenance of existing wage rates in the coal mining industry.
As regards the second one in the name of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), I have given it very full consideration, and, although there are some doubts in my mind as to whether strictly it is in order or not, it is arguable either way, and I have consequently given the benefit of the doubt to the hon. Member and shall call it.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert a provision to continue Section two of the Coal Mines Act, 1931, with respect to calculation of wages.
3.30 p.m.
The House will understand that the insertion of the provision mentioned means a continuation of the wages Section contained in the Act of 1931. I was surprised to learn, as were also my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and, I think, many hon. Members behind the Government, that the Government intended to continue the organisation Section of the 1930 Act and the hours Section of the 1931 Act until the Geneva Convention is ratified, but that the wages Section was to be left out. I always thought that it was common ground that organisation, hours, and wages were inextricably interwoven in dealing with the coal industry. I am sorry that the Leader of the House has left the Chamber. I want Conservative Members to take note of the fact—and I am all the
3.30 p.m.
more surprised that the Wages Clause is left out of the Bill—that when the 1931 Bill was going through the House the Lord President of the Council, the present Leader of the House, complained of a time limit being put into the Bill at all. As a matter of fact, he thought that the 1931 Bill continued the Wages Clause, and I hope that the House, and particularly Conservative Members, will listen to the following quotation. I well remember this statement being made. The Lord President of the Council, now Leader of the House, thought that in the interests of the industry there ought not to have been that limitation upon the 1931 Bill and that it ought to have been continued until the Geneva Coal Convention was ratified and carried into operation. Remembering well what the right hon. Gentleman said, I referred to the OFFICIAL REPORT and I find that, speaking on the 6th July, 1931, after the Prime Minister, the present Leader of the House said:
There are one or two features in this legislation which I think bad, thoroughly bad, although it is quite possible that they were unavoidable in the circumstances of having left the ultimate settlement to the last moment. I think that the limitation of the term is dangerous. I think it would have been much wiser to have made the Bill run until new legislation was required to bring our hours into line with the Geneva Convention as soon as the necessary ratification took place, because, after all, I cannot believe that there is any prospect of this Convention being ratified within the course of the next 12 months, during the lifetime of this Measure, and I should be very glad if the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary for Mines, whoever may be speaking later, would tell this House, perfectly frankly, what he believes will be the date by which we may get his ratification, which, I am sure, everyone desires. It is an important question, and by shortening the term to a year, it seems to me that you cause two difficulties, one perhaps arising out of the other.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to give reasons, and I wish I had time to read those reasons. He concluded by saying:
That is the inherent weakness of this term of 12 months, and I do not know whether even now the Government would consider whether, if they have any date in their minds when the Convention might become ratified, it would be possible to make the Bill run until we can amalgamate with the agreed international hours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1931; cols. 1756–1757, Vol. 254.]
That speech makes it quite clear that the Lord President of the Council emphasised the fact that he thought the limitation of the Bill was a bad thing, because it tended to disturb the industry. Hours, organisation and wages are all bound up together. There are certain persons who know nothing about this industry who sometimes blame the miners for all that has happened. That is a very common frame of mind, but no one who knows the industry, least of all the coalowners, and no one who is conversant with the conditions will deny that the present economic conditions in their acute form are due to economic changes in the industry generally.
I have a very vivid memory of what took place amongst the representatives of the coalowners when the negotiations and discussions on the Geneva Convention began. It fell to my lot as the Government representative at Geneva, as a member of the governing body for two years, to move that the first technical committee be set up, but before I could move it the representative of the Federation of British Industries, Mr. Forbes Watson, in co-operation with the coalowners, moved that a technical committee be set up to begin investigation as to the possibility of a common convention on hours right throughout Europe, and to that resolution they gave very enthusiastic support. It was also agreed when that debate took place, that with hours must come the question of international organisation, discussions on quotas, area arrangements and other things. The coalowners have become rather cold on the question of the Convention since a new Government has been in office. I think that is a proper interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Their discussions and negotiations in connection with other countries on output arrangements and so forth have practically stopped since that time.
Now when the 12 months are up and there is a fresh Government in office, it looks as if the owners can get over all these entanglements, and the Government consent to cut out the wages section of the Act of 1931. What is the reason for the Government cutting out that section? The President of the Board of Trade is very genial when he meets one on the
question of personal administration and so forth, but when it comes to a question of wages, State regulation, except by tariffs and something of that kind, the State regulating the standards of the wages and lives of the workers, he becomes arctic minded. He becomes cold. He adopts a sort of early 19th century outlook on matters of this description. In introducing the Bill he said, and he was very emphatic about it, and seemed to think that he had expressed a very profound principle, that we have to take the wages question out of politics. That view has been expressed by other Members of this House. That point of view is very common in Tory circles. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps forgive me when I say that he is a very good Tory on this matter.
It is a common expression of opinion in Tory circles that wages have been brought into politics because I and my hon. Friends from the Miners' Federation are here. As a matter of fact, we are here because of the wages question, which came before this House in an acute form in 1912. Those were the halcyon days of the coal trade, when coalowners made great profits and did extremely well. Some of us were then working in the pits, and were proud of our craft, but we too had to work under conditions which are almost beyond description. After our seven hours' work underground at the coal face we were able to take home 4s. per day as the result of all our efforts and labours. The revelations which took place as to the wages in the coal trade in those days were so disgraceful that they compelled this House to accept the principle of a minimum wage. Those who talk about keeping this question out of politics are about 20 years too late. The right hon. Gentleman increased the hours in the mines from seven to eight per day. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has told the House that when he and I hewed coal in Durham we started on a six and a-half hour day—

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): How long did boys work?

Mr. LAWSON: It is true that they were working 10 hours. It is also true that piece rates have made a generous contribution towards a reduction, but if
anyone has paid for it is not the owners but the men at the coal face. It was felt that the eight hours could not continue and that the matter would have to be reconsidered. The Leader of the House told us that when the eight hours were put through he really did think that it would safeguard the livelihood and the wages of the men. I believe he thought that it would have the effect of increasing their wages.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin) indicated assent.

Mr. LAWSON: The fact is that wages have gone down and down, and it is indeed a miracle how people live on the wages they receive. As the hon. Member for Down (Viscount Castle-reagh) has said, about 60 per cent. of the men in Durham have a basic wage of 6s. 6d. per day, and they get three or four days work per week. If they get four days work they get no unemployment benefit. That is a condition of things under which men cannot live in ordinary decency. Everyone who knows anything about the wage conditions in mining areas will admit that they are far too low not only for the class of men who are employed, but if they are to live under ordinary rational conditions. The result of the extension to eight hours was a wholesale reduction of wages. It did not do what the Government thought it would do. It did not get trade, it left the old problems unsolved, and the Government had to have a fresh look at the problem. It was a case of seven hours or perhaps some trouble in the industry. There was a compromise on seven and a-half hours, which the miners agreed to accept because there were some safeguards for wages. Now what have the Government done? The Government have taken this course merely because the 'owners have given them a certain guarantee. We had an example of what the guarantee means last night when the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) told us that the Kent coal-owners have withdrawn their guarantee. What is going to happen in the Kent coal mines? What guarantee have we that someone else will not come along and say that certain conditions have not
been kept, therefore they propose to withdraw their guarantee.
The real truth of the matter lies in the President of the Board of Trade's statement that the Government want to take this matter out of politics. That would mean that we must separate hours and wages. Hours are to go on indefinitely, but wages will be reconsidered in 12 months time. Then each district will be taken by itself. The Government knows and the President of the Board of Trade knows that the coalowners stand for district arrangements. The Government in taking this course have deliberately given the coalowners what they wanted, that is to separate wages and hours, and give them an opportunity of a piecemeal settlement, district settlements, with all the disadvantages of such a settlement as far as the men are concerned. The proposals of the Government with regard to wages and hours and their intention to separate the industry into districts will undoubtedly have the effect of creating an air of crisis at every step during the next 12 months. It goes without saying that if the men have no guarantees there will be low wages, and there is the fear of the districts being separated for reductions of wages. That will intensify the difficulties of the situation, and will undoubtedly mean driving straight for a crisis.
We say that this Instruction should be carried in order that the stability which has prevailed in the industry during the past 12 months should continue. Let no one make any mistake about it; the miners are not going back to district settlements. The owners' intention is to get district settlements, but we are not going back. I know we have district arrangements now, but since the changed economic conditions have come about we have always had a sense of unity among the great mass of the workers. But we are not going back, and I do not think any miner will consent to go back, to the ordinary district arrangements that prevailed before the War, which mean reductions on a big scale.
It has been asked: Why should the miners have special legislation? That question has been put on several occasions. I am the more astonished that the President of the Board of Trade put it. What are the facts about wages?
Someone pointed out last night that the railwaymen have a wages board under an Act; of Parliament. As a matter of fact a whole range of workers have special protection under the Trade Boards Acts. My two years in the Ministry of Labour brought me many revelations, some rather unpalatable. Not the least was the fact that under the trade boards, which protect the standards of life of whole masses of people, there are trades which were sweated and which had to be protected by the State, and that as a result they are in a better position than the miners are. If this House would insist on giving a trade board to the miners we would not ask for this special legislation. The point that special legislative protection for the miners is being asked for is, therefore, by no means sound.
The fact remains that the question of hours is separated from the wages question. The hours are indefinite. I would not presume for a moment to discuss what has happened in reference to the Beven-hours Convention. If the Government make it quite clear that they are sincere about that mines Convention there will be a mines Convention in a very short time, but up to the moment there has been no tangible result from what has taken place. Under this Bill the hours are indefinite, and the wages are segregated, leaving the miners in a very bad position. That is very dangerous indeed. The hon. Member for County Down made a speech which was not controversial, and therefore I shall not for a moment think of making any attack upon it, but his speech had special significance because he is interested in coal and represents a very important coal company. Moreover, he is associated with one who is a Member of the Government. He pointed out that districts differ, that Northumberland was not the same as Yorkshire, and that Lancashire differs from Wales. He repeated what was commonly heard on Conservative platforms, that not only did districts differ, but collieries differed. That is all quite true and I could emphasise and underline all that the hon. Member said. But it seems to me that that is an argument for rather than against a national settlement, for in the very county in which he is interested there are something like 150 collieries that differ very much, and they have a common wages system. There is nothing
in that argument for the system has been worked for many years.
In moving this Instruction, I do so on the grounds that it is bad for the industry, and that it will bring an air of crisis in the next 12 months. The Government have given the coalowners just what they wanted. They have fought for this ever since the War. It has been one long process of manœuvring, sometimes of recrimination, but one thing they have asked for and that is the separation of one district from another. The Government have given the coalowners exactly what they wanted. But they are doing damage to the industry. Anyone who knows the state of the industry to-day knows that it needs all that peace and balanced consideration which those engaged on both sides can give it. The Miners' Federation, on the showing of the Secretary for Mines, have not been behind-hand in making their contributions to the organised side of the industry.
4.0 p.m.
The difficulties with which the industry is faced are going to become more acute as time goes on. Indeed, in the North of England they are very acute at the present moment arising from the discriminations of foreign countries. Collieries are closing right and left. I do not know whether the Government are really informed as to what is happening as the result of reactions of the German and French discriminations. There is a colliery close to where I live that through all the evil times since the War has scarcely lost a single day. That colliery closed last week directly as the result—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now entering into a Second Reading Debate. He must remember that this Motion is confined to Section 2 of the 1931 Act, which deals only with the calculation of wages.

Mr. LAWSON: I appreciate your Ruling, but I was only trying to point out some of the very difficult conditions with which the industry is faced at the present time, and that, as a result of those conditions, the industry needs peace and all sympathetic contributions that can be made for its well-being generally. But I am afraid that that spirit neither will be given nor can be expected if the Government by their own volition deliberately take the wages which have been
guaranteed for the past 12 months out of this Bill. It has been said throughout these Debates that if you have got to carry on you must have some reductions, and the hon. Gentleman suggested that many of the coalowners were in a bad way. That is quite true. I do not doubt that for a moment, but I think that he overpainted the picture, for the truth is that sometimes in the coal industry it pays not to pay, that is to say, a firm will have a company which sells itself cheap coal, and does not care whether it makes a profit on the coal or not, because it does very well on the subsidiary companies, and, therefore, they come on the right side, anyway. One thing is certain. Arising out of this, the coalowners want the miners in separate categories. They want their reductions. The Government think that that is the law of life, and that those alone shall have their opportunity to wreak their will. In making that statement I am not putting a party case. I am stating the case as the miner sees it, and as he knows it will work out. He is going to have reductions. It is true that they may be 12 months hence, but the aim of keeping this wage Clause out of this Bill is that there may be the necessary flexibility when the time is up, and the miners have to submit to reductions.
A good deal is often said about the work of the miner. We in the mines, of course, do not think much about it. We know we do a man's work, but here is an opportunity for every Member of this House to express sympathy in real terms. The owners got their way by an increase of half an hour, and the miners agreed because they had got a guarantee of legislative protection. Having got that protection, there was some stability. I do not think it can be challenged that there has been really more stability in the last 12 months in the mining world than there has been for many years, and that has been because the wages were guaranteed in the Bill. They offer a sop of 12 months here on the old principle of giving a gratuity, but in 12 months' time the miner is well aware that very possibly he is going to be in a disadvantageous position which will lead almost inevitably to reductions, and perhaps to trouble.
There is one feature about modern mining which ought to be borne in mind
in all these Debates. As time goes on, work gets more difficult, more dangerous and more strenuous in the pits. The machine has taken away a good deal of independence. It has meant concentration. It has meant an increase of output and heat and strife almost on a scale that in previous days was hardly dreamt about. If ever there was a time when legislative protection for wages was necessary, it is the present time. I ask the House to agree to this Instruction in the best interests of the coalfields, and in the best interests of peace in the industry. This industry has a long road to go and very terrible problems to face. Those problems have got to be faced with good will, utilising all the experience both of men and employers. I wonder if we have minds big enough to see all the rocks and dangers ahead as a result of the exclusion of this wages Clause from the Bill. I trust, therefore, Members behind the Government will insist that this protection be given, and that the Section of the 1931 Act is continued in the best interests of the industry and of those men who are working in it.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Motion.
I am glad that we have been given an opportunity this afternoon of bringing this matter forward. We all felt very sore about not having the opportunity to deal with it separately until you, Mr. Speaker, allowed it to come forward. To the miners, apart from the shortening of the working day, this is the all-important thing. Wages come next, and, seeing that we cannot get the shorter working day owing to the economic stress, the next thing is to protect our wages. The history of the seven and a-half hour day, going back to the 1931 Act, proves that at that time we were able to impress upon the House of Commons, and not only the Labour Government, for we had not a majority, that these two things ought to go together, and that as long as the seven and a-half hour day continued we should have a guarantee of wages. I think that that was acceptable to all, and the working of the last 12 months has shown that, although there has been some slight difficulty, on the whole it has been satisfactory. We knew, also, that the Government of the day would have to do something before 8th July to put the position on a proper basis, and we ex-
pected at least the same conditions should prevail as in the 1931 Act.
The Government, for some reason or other which will probably be explained later, have decided that the seven and a-half hour day must continue, but that wages must not be allowed on the same conditions as were allowed before. They say that for 12 months they have got a gentleman's understanding. I want to say, personally, that I accept that. I believe the statement of the President of the Board of Trade and that of the Secretary for Mines last night, especially that of the Secretary for Mines, that they fully intend to carry out that agreement, and that any district which tries to break away will be dealt with. But what we ask, for greater safety, is that it may be included in an Act of Parliament, because the seven and a-half hour day is to be indefinite, and is to be governed by the Convention. At the end of 12 months we can see that something is likely to happen. I have returned from the miners' conference to-day. The one thought in the minds of the delegates is, what are we faced with at the end of 12 months? Does it mean that we are going to be driven to sectional fighting, that district after district will be faced with the question of having to defend itself on the wages issue?
It is because of that that we are appealing to the House of Commons to give us protection. If there is any sincerity in the coalowners or the Government; if there is any belief in the recovery of trade, then they ought to give us this security. I understand that the coalowners say that in their mind they have no doubt, but the matter must be left to them. Then the Secretary for Mines, in a very impressive speech last night, said that Part I had been continued for the express purpose of giving the coalowners the opportunity to make it so that there will be no question of any fall in wages, and I think he believed honestly that when they deal with Part 1 as it ought to be dealt with, there should be no idea in their mind of any fall in wages at the end of 12 months. Therefore, putting these two points together, why cannot the hon. Gentleman give to the miners the feeling of security for which they are asking, that this should be in an Act of Parliament for their protection?
It is the remembrance of the way we have been dealt with in the past which makes us so anxious to have this matter included in an Act of Parliament. The fear in our minds is that if this Measure goes on to the Statute Book without this provision, there may be the utmost difficulty afterwards in securing it. The present wages have been quoted many times in all parts of the House. They are miserably low and no one attempts to defend any lowering of those wages. On the contrary, I think nearly all hon. Members would hold up their hands in consternation at the mere thought of a lowering in those wages. If that is the feeling in the minds of hon. Members, why should there be any question at all about conceding what we ask for in this Motion? All the miners ask for is that they should be allowed to have a sense of security, as well as the coalowners, so that all may go forward together and help to put the industry on the way to recovery. I make an earnest appeal in this matter to the House of Commons on behalf of 50 Members of the Labour party including 23 mining Members. We may be only a small portion of the House but I submit that in a time of crisis and on a subject of this kind it is worth while to listen to our appeal.

Mr. McKEAG: I support this Motion. Representing as I do a constituency in which there are many thousands of miners, my first inclination was to regard and accept this Bill as a kind of Hobson's choice. I felt that the majority of my miner constituents, wearied with the strife of the past year and worn out with the tremendous struggle to keep their heads above water during the depression of recent years, would also be inclined to accept the Bill in that spirit. The Debate of Monday has entirely changed that viewpoint. It was pitiable indeed for me, with all the admiration which I have for the great ability of the President of the Board of Trade to see his statements torn to shreds in the remorseless examination to which they were subjected by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), who, in a speech of commendable moderation, lifted the veil on the so-called negotiations which have been taking place. I was, therefore, all the more pleased to hear the very sincere statement of the Secretary for Mines yesterday. Even so, I do not think there can be any question
that, in introducing this Bill in its present form, and omitting any reference to wages, the Government have laid themselves open to the charge of legislating in the interests of the owners and creating an opportunity for the further depression of wages. It is very regrettable indeed for me to have to say this but some of us feel strongly about this matter and I take this opportunity of making my own position clear. I cannot support proposals which would throw the whole question of wages into the melting pot in 12 months' time when, at the same time, we are asked to legislate for the indefinite continuance of the seven and a-half hours day.
I am not at all impressed with the statements which have been made about the ratification of the Geneva Convention. In any case, if the Government are so convinced that there will be no great delay in ratification, why not secure a guarantee that wages will not be reduced during the intervening period? I appreciate all that has been said about the inadvisability of making wages the subject of statutory enactments, but, if you are going to interfere, surely that interference ought to be on a fair and equitable basis. I wish to add my plea that no opportunity should be afforded for lowering the standard of life of the mining classes. The position in Durham, the capital of which county I represent, is truly heart-rending. Whole communities are in la state of real destitution. Apart from the miners, shopkeepers and others who are dependent upon the prosperity of the miners, are filing petitions in bankruptcy in increasing numbers, and the position really beggars description. It is for those reasons that I support the Motion. I do not want the position which I have indicated to be aggravated at the end of 12 months. I also support it because I believe that, as long as hours are maintained at seven and a-half, there ought not to be the slightest possibility of a reduction of wages. Some provision ought to be inserted in the Bill to ensure that there will be no further reduction in the wages of the already poorly-paid miners.

Mr. CAPE: I wish to support the appeal of the last two speakers to the Government to insert in the Bill a pro-
vision for the maintenance of the minimum percentage wages now paid in the districts. We have been told, quite sincerely I am sure, by the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade that the coalowners have guaranteed that for 12 months the minimum percentage wages now obtaining in the districts will remain unchanged. The Attorney-General was also emphatic upon that point, and it would be unfair to doubt the announcements made by those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. I believe that they are convinced in their own minds that the coalowners will stand by their bargain or their guarantee. I will go, perhaps further than some hon. Members would expect me to go, and express my belief that the major portion of the coalowners will stand by that bargain. Speaking with the experience of one who has been a negotiator of miners' wages for over 30 years, I can say that I have found in the county which I represent that certain elements among the coalowners have been very loyal to any agreements made by them. But we have also one or two who would try to get out of any agreement if they could do so, and, very often, such owners have to be brought to book by their own people, and made to stand firm.
I take it that the coalowners in my district are as good as the coalowners in any other district and, therefore, regarding the question nationally, and taking the whole body of coalowners together, I think it will be found that they are not all angels and that there will be some with a desire to get outside the agreement. We have already been informed, not in this House but outside, that the Kent coalowners, a day or so after giving the guarantee, have withdrawn it. What is going to happen should other districts do the same thing? The Secretary for Mines says it will be the duty of the Government to see that these people are made to stand by their agreement. I presume that that would have to be done by an Act of Parliament, but, in the meantime, there might be a strike in such a district to resist a demand by the coalowners to take something from the miners. There might be dislocation and the result might be more disastrous, not only to the district but to the nation, than the inclusion of this provision in the present Bill. It may be due to dense-
ness or lack of understanding on my part but I cannot see why such a provision should not be included in the Bill when everybody supports the idea that the owners will stand by the guarantee which they have given.
As representatives of the miners what we are looking forward to with apprehension is the position at the end of the 12 months period. What is going to take place then? The danger as we know from past experience is that the weakest district, the most uneconomic district, may make an attack upon the wages of its workers. The workers in that district would have to resist that attack by a stoppage, or for want of strength, they might be compelled to yield to the employers' demand. But the matter does not stop there. In an adjoining district however economically sound it may be the coalowners would say to the men, "The men in this other district, which is competing with us, are to suffer a reduction, and you will have to do the same." So it goes round in a vicious circle and we never get to the end of it. Bad as the miners' wages are to-day, and God knows they are bad enough, there is every evidence that in two or three years' time, unless there is a tremendous change in the spirit of the world, those wages will be brought to the pitiable condition that they were in 30 or 40 years ago.
It is the duty of Parliament to protect those who are employed in this vital industry. If Parliament decrees that the miners ought to accept this proposal in regard to hours, then Parliament ought to give the miners some guarantee that certain minimum percentage wages should be paid so long as the seven and a-half hour day continues. Let us have a fair bargain. Reference has been made to the Geneva Convention. It may be 12 months or it may be five years before it is ratified. It may be that it will take as long to ratify that convention as it is taking to ratify the Washington Convention. It may be that the idea in the minds of the Government is that the Geneva Convention will not be ratified for a considerable number of years. I hope that that is not so but if it is fair to make provision to deal, as the Bill does, with the question of hours, then it is only fair that the wages question should be treated in the same way.
4.30 p.m.
I hope that before these Debates conclude the Secretary for Mines will be able to tell us what is the real position in Kent. I regarded the attitude of the Kent coalowners with grave apprehension. I represent in this House a constituency a part of which is a coalfield and is supposed to be in a very uneconomic condition. Therefore, if any new coalfield like Kent will, without any consideration for the Government or anybody else, withdraw a definite guarantee in such a short time, what will happen in other coalfields? We view that situation with very grave alarm, and I add my appeal to the Government to secure that if the coalowners can be consulted between now and the final stages of the Bill, they shall be asked to allow this question of wages to be included in the Bill, so that the coal industry can settle down. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), that if the minimum percentages and the hours now proposed in the Bill could run in conjunction and go on for a given number of years, there would be some chance, as I said on the Second Reading, of buyers and sellers making long-term contracts. The trouble 13 that at the present time there is no certainty or stability in the coal trade, but if that could be done, there would be a chance of the industry being in a position to take advantage of any improvements that might come along in the European and world markets to make agreements and take long-term contracts.

Mr. MARTIN: I intervene to ask a question, in no spirit of carping criticism, of the hon. and right hon. Members on the Opposition benches, but I would like to say, first of all, that I do not think they can deny that whatever may be the form or arrangement for wage payments that they have, it will not affect the capacity of the districts to pay. Therefore, I would like to ask them what is their view with regard to the deficiencies on the monthly ascertainments throughout the districts. I pointed out on the Second Reading that there were some millions owing under these deficiencies, and I cannot understand what their attitude is if a district is definitely losing. The present percentage on the basis in Durham is 65. If that means a loss per ton, how can they possibly ask that
that loss should be statutorily fixed? I ask my question in no sense of offensive criticism, but I want to know how collieries which are definitely losing can go on paying a wage which is fixed by Statute. I hope that before the Government reply, I shall have some answer on that point.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Martin), we are quite well aware that there are certain districts, according to the quarterly returns, which are in an uneconomic position and have not been paying profits for a considerable time. But if the promise made by the present Prime Minister when the Mines Bill was under discussion in 1930 were carried out, there would be no district, or at least very few districts, which could be described as uneconomic from the point of view of ability to pay profits. The Prime Minister in 1930 said:
When you have got amalgamations, as we shall have, when royalties are nationalised, as they must be, and without delay, then the conditions which make Part I of the Bill necessary will have completely disappeared, and the way in which prices then can be controlled will be in a totally different fashion—on account of the amalgamations and the nationalisation of royalties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1929; col. 1769, Vol. 233.]
If you look through the quarterly returns for the last dozen years, you will find that the landlords have got more than the owners as a whole, and in certain districts infinitely more than the owners. The industry to a large extent has been worked in the interests of the big consumers of coal and the royalty owners, and we want to get rid of that state of affairs. We agree with the Prime Minister, who was also Prime Minister in 1930, though representing a different party; and when he went to the country last October, a change in the present situation, so far as the Mines Act was concerned, was not contained in the "doctor's mandate." He went further and stated:
There is no reason whatever for any reduction of wages when the shift is reduced to seven and a-half hours, and Part I provides the wherewithal for that to be done— not by robbing the public or by taxing the public, but by giving the coal trade an opportunity to get a sound economic price for its goods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1929; col. 1771, Vol. 233.]
That is all that we are asking, that the pledge of the Prime Minister, given two years ago, should be carried out, and that the seven and a-half hour day, so long as it lasts, should carry with it a legal obligation on the part of the Government to continue the conditions with regard to wages. I agree, for reasons that I stated last night, that there may be difficulty in the way of the employers meeting the view that we are expressing, but there should be no difficulty whatever in the Government giving us tonight an indication of their willingness to accept the Prime Minister's pledge as an obligation upon them, that if the Geneva Convention is not ratified within the next 12 months, there should be some understanding by which the Government would be prepared to legislate a year hence for the continuance of the conditions applying to wages until the Convention is ratified.
We ask for nothing more than honest dealing. We enter into an agreement, and we keep it, even though it may work out more or less badly to us. We have done that for years. Our organisation exists for that purpose, and surely, if an organisation such as the Miners' Federation is prepared to act in that honest fashion, it should not be unreasonable to ask the Government to do likewise. I sincerely hope that the Minister will at least give us an indication of the willingness of the Government to stand by the promise made by the Prime Minister two years ago.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): The Debate that has been started upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) ranges generally over the ground that was covered in the Second Reading Debate of yesterday and the day before. Strictly speaking, the Motion has application only to wages, but many other questions have been raised, and I would suggest at the outset that it would be wise if we could deal with this Motion as soon as possible, so that we may be able to deal with the very important Amendments on the Order Paper, relating not only to hours and to wages, but also to the operation of Part I of the Act of 1930, as we are very anxious to have a full expression of the opinion of the Committee in considering, as we shall have to consider later on, the Amend-
ments that are needed to that Part. It will be a very great help to the Committeo if those who are experienced in the industry in every part of the country can give to us the contributions that we need, so that they may be weighed when the decisions have to be taken later. I suggest that yesterday we did take a vote, after a full discussion, upon the questions which have been raised on this Motion.
I would like to deal with what was said by the hon. Member, in which he very moderately expressed an opinion that he very sincerely holds. We are led to think that, in doing away with this statutory provision as to wages, we are depriving the collier of some long-standing advantage. If it is so important to the miner that he should have had this statutory protection, I want to know why it was not in the main Act of the last Government in 1930.

Mr. CAPE: The hon. Member will remember that there was an Amendment in regard to a wage Clause on that Bill, and that it was ruled out of order.

Mr. FOOT: Whether or not it was ruled out of order, it was perfectly open, if it was looked upon as a matter of vital consequence to the collier, for the Government of the day to have introduced an Amendment into their Bill or to have drawn it in such a way that this statutory protection was given. When did it first arise? We have discussed this matter as if there had been secured in some past day a statutory direction as to wages of which we were very wickedly depriving the miner, but we never heard of it until last year, and it was not then introduced as an important matter of principle. We have had reference made to the Debates of last year. Let the hon. Member who has quoted those Debates read them through carefully, and he will not find, from beginning to end, any suggestion that a great new principle was being introduced into our law.
A Bill was introduced just on the eve of the change that was to take place, on the 8th July. The Bill was introduced ostensibly and declaredly as a temporary Measure, and all that we knew of that Bill was that it was passed through hurriedly and that the Opposition put down no Amendments to it. The time was so short and the difficulty was so
great. The Lord Chancellor said, in another place, that we were standing upon the brink of a precipice, and so there was carried, without discussion, a Bill which included for the first time this statutory provision in relation to wages. It was something that was abnormal, something that was temporary. The whole Bill was temporary and abnormal, and, as I said yesterday, I hardly think it is fair to invoke that Measure in order to secure now as normal and permanent what was then only temporary and abnormal. In spite of the argument that was put forward by the hon. Member, he was a little ingenuous in referring to the words of the Lord President of the Council. I did not need to hear a quotation of that speech, because I had read it very carefully before the Debate started. Naturally, I went through all that was said last year. It is quite true that the Lord President of the Council said that it was an open Bill last year, but at that time he spoke only of hours. I ask my hon. Friend to read the speech again and to tell me of any part of it that refers to wages.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the hon. Gentleman point me out any place in the speech where the Lord President of the Council objected to the principle of wages in the Bill

Mr. FOOT: There had been a speech made by the Prime Minister, who introduced the Bill as a temporary Measure. Then the Lord President of the Council, when he spoke, said that it was an unfortunate thing that we were in the position of having to discuss a Bill that had to be passed in such great haste. Most of his speech was directed to the point that if a 12 months' Bill were passed it would only make another crisis in 12 months' time. All his argument had reference to hours.

Mr. LAWSON: No.

Mr. FOOT: I have read that speech just as carefully as the hon. Member—

Mr. LAWSON: I again make the point that the Leader of the House was speaking of that Bill as a whole, and at no time did he object to the principle of wages being introduced.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: The hon. Gentleman has asked why this matter
has not been raised before. On the last occasion there was a special emergency. The Government were reducing the hours by half-an-hour, and in order to- protect the miners against consequential reductions of wages, they inserted that provision in the Act. We are now in the same position this year, and we require the same protection.

Mr. FOOT: The hon. Gentleman's intervention means that I have another speech to answer. The issue can only be settled by Members reading the speech of the Lord President of the Council. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman's argument, when he urged that the Act should not be limited to 12 months because it only postponed the crisis, was an argument that had no reference to wages, but only to hours.

Mr. LANSBURY: His argument applied to the Bill as a whole.

Mr. FOOT: It dealt in terms only with hours. It is true that this year we have not the statutory provision that applied last year. and I can quite understand hon. Members who speak for mining constituencies pressing us upon the point, but a decision was taken upon it, and upon that decision this Bill rested, and the arrangement that has been made outside the House rests now upon the proposals that we submit to the House. There was brought in last time, for the first time in our history, some new feature in our law. [Interruption,] I am not arguing whether it was a right principle or a bad principle. I have in front of me a number of very powerful opponents, and it is difficult for me to deal with them all at the same time. Whether it was right or wrong, many wiser people than I am in the history of this country have said that it is a dangerous thing to put in an Act of Parliament an express provision that you shall pay a certain amount. The whole basis of our law, which has been built up by some of the most advanced and progressive men has been this: Do not set in your Act of Parliament an express provision for the payment of a certain amount, but, if you aim to raise the standard of the people, put machinery by which the right conditions can be secured.
Reference has been made to the Trade Boards Act, but hon. Members know very well that that Act did not say that so much is to be paid to this person and so much to that. The difficulty about doing that is that, if you want to alter the conditions for the benefit of the workers, you cannot do it unless an Act of Parliament is passed to change them.. Those who have opposed the principle of an express statutory provision in the past have not done it in the interests of the wicked employers. They have very often been some of the most advanced social reformers, and they have opposed this principle in the interests of the workers themselves. Therefore, let it not be said, while we say that this was a precedent that was brought in to meet an emergency last year, that we are doing an injustice in taking it out of this Bill What we do say is that if we take away that statutory provision we want to secure something in its place. I was not satisfied that this provision should go unless we had something that would be equally satisfactory. I speak for the President of the Board of Trade, and I think for all who are interested in the passage of the Bill, when I say that we want to be satisfied that no worker in any mining district will be worse off to the extent of a penny piece during the operation of the guarantee because he has a guarantee rather than a statutory protection. Unless I had had that assurance, I should have had great difficulty in putting my name to this Bill. I sought advice from those who are qualified to speak. I am not qualified. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) said yesterday that the Secretary for Mines was at a disadvantage unless he was a miner. I admit that, although I do not suppose the hon. Member would be willing to have a mineowner as Secretary for Mines.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: Oh. yes. I would prefer a mineowner at the head of the Department, because, if I had to discuss any question with him, I would know that I was speaking to a man who knew the business as well as I did. For the same reason I should prefer a miner.

Mr. FOOT: It will be a long time before there is any Secretary for Mines who knows the industry as well as my hon. Friend with his long association with it. I was apologising for the fact that I am
not intimately acquainted with the industry. Therefore, I went to those who could advise me as to whether the workers would be as safe with a guarantee as with a statutory provision. I was told that when an agreement was entered into, taking the general experience of the industry, it might be a better protection for the men, because the statutory provision of last year did not protect the basic wage—nor does the guarantee now protect the basic wage—and if you have an agreement there is less likelihood of the basic wage being undermined than there might be if there were thrust upon a reluctant community what they thought to be wrong, and thrust upon them what applied to no other industry.

Mr. BATEY: That shows your innocence.

Mr. FOOT: I like to proceed on the assumption that a man is innocent until he is found to be guilty. I would expect more, even from the coalowners of the country, if I said that I expected them to carry out the guarantee than if I started with the assumption that everybody was going to break his word. I start with the assumption that they are likely to keep it, but the question may arise that some may not. That difficulty has been mentioned. It was not brought up in the Federation yesterday. I was the first to speak of these difficulties, and the House would have resented it if, having heard yesterday morning of this one trouble that had arisen, I had not immediately brought it before the House. As to 98 per cent. of the total output of this country, the Mining Association is in a position to speak. The guarantees that have been given cover that 98 per cent. Kent is not a member of the Mining Association. It is a member of the Central Committee under the Coal Mines Act of 1930. There have been some differences between the Central Committee and the Kent colliery owners, and those differences have been expressed. It was largely because of those differences that the difficulty which revealed itself yesterday morning arose.
With regard to Kent, I gave the assurance yesterday, not on my own initiative —it was an assurance that expressed the mind of the Government—that it would be impossible, having carried through this Bill on the assumption that the guarantee
was to be as good as the statutory provision, to leave the workers in Kent deprived of that advantage. It does not matter how many are working there: they all have their several responsibilities and families to provide for, and they have a right to look to the House for the same protection as would be given to the 850,000 in other parts of the country. That being so, if the difficulty in Kent persists, it will not be beyond the power of the House and of this Government to overcome that difficulty. Already we have taken what steps are possible in that direction. I have had the opportunity of a conference this morning, and I pointed out that the differences between the Central Committee and the Kent colliery owners must not result to the disadvantage of the men concerned. At this moment that conference is being continued, and later this evening I may be able to make an announcement that Kent has come into line with the rest of the country. Even if that announcement cannot be made to-day, it is upon that assumption that Members can vote for this Bill, namely, that no miners in this country are to be deprived of the advantage of the guarantee that has been generally given.
5.0 p.m.
We have had something said about wages to-day. A very effective speech was made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. D. Davies) yesterday, when he spoke of the actual wages that were paid. No one on this side of the House wants to defend those wages. I do not say that the miner is being paid too much. I think he is being paid too little. I suppose that the conditions are determined by many things over which this country alone has no control, and the issue that is now being raised does not involve the justification of miners wages. We make no apology for them. As to the crisis that is going to happen in 12 months time, if we had a 12 months' Bill with a statutory guarantee we might still have a crisis in 12 months' time, so what difference would that make? The same argument could be used about a crisis in that case. Last year Parliament passed an Act which lasted for only 12 months and expires on 8th July, The same argument could be used about a crisis then. I want to avoid a crisis, we want to lessen the possibilities of a crisis, and I suggest that one way in
which we can do it is not to talk about a crisis. Sometimes war comes because people talk about it.

Mr. TINKER: But we are in it.

Mr. FOOT: I appreciate the point that those who are representatives of the miners and who have had the advantage, or, as they might say, the disadvantage of experience as miners, speak with an intensity which is not shared by others; but there was that possibility of trouble when the 12 months' Act was passed last year. Whether there is a statutory guarantee for 12 months or a guarantee for 12 months, there is always a possibility of danger at the end of 12 months.

Mr. PRICE: When this Bill was first introduced it took into consideration both hours of labour and wages, but now it is confined to hours, and, if a crisis should arise at the end of 12 months, only wages will be involved.

Mr. FOOT: I think the answer to that is that in the case of any Bill with a time limit one can talk about a crisis that may arise at the end of that limit. I was suggesting that sometimes war happens because people talk war. They talk war until war becomes inevitable. I am very hopeful that all that is being said in this House will have its effect upon the owners. I think it is their business, mainly, to assuage this fear. They have heard the fear expressed. It has not been put forward simply as rhetoric, simply for the purpose of making political speeches, but is a fear which is genuinely felt by the miners' representatives, and I hope what has been said in that respect will have weight with those who can do most to mitigate the difficulty. I have no wish to repeat what I said yesterday, but I think a serious onus would rest upon those who, given the advantage of the continuation of Part I of the Act, made any attack upon wage standards, already too low in the mining industry.
I think I have covered generally the ground which has been traversed in the course of this Debate, and the suggestion I make is that, seeing this is a fundamental part of the Bill, we should now get on to the several Amendments which have been submitted. The whole of this
little Bill hangs together, all the arrangements made outside before the Bill was introduced are interwoven, and, if the House should now decide to change the foundation of the Measure, which is based upon the guarantees that have been given, then the Bill itself would go, and the negotiations would have to begin all over again, and I do not think that would be likely to promote peace and quietness in the industry. Our proposals, although I know they are repugnant to the Miners' Federation, and are opposed by many Members in this House, were genuinely inspired by the desire for peace, and that desire can be carried further in any steps that may be taken in the course of the next 12 months. After that explanation, I hope the Motion may be withdrawn.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I have listened from beginning to end to the discussion which has taken place this afternoon, and, incidentally, I have listened to most of the Debate since Monday afternoon, and I am bound to say that while I always listen with great attention to what my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines has to say on any matter, he has carried less conviction to me this afternoon than is usually the case with him. I have a sort of feeling that even yet the hon. Gentleman is not quite seized of the difficulty and the apprehension which is entertained on this side of the House in regard to the omission of provisions for wages from the present Bill. I have been astonished at the attitude of the Government in regard to this matter. They claim—and I will not controvert it for the moment; let me accept it as being a just claim—that they are entitled to regard themselves as in every sense a National Government. Surely a National Government above all Governments should approach this problem of wages without any suspicion of bias in favour of one side or the other, without ground for suspicion that they lean either to the side of the owners or of the miners.
But I must confess that the final sentences of the Secretary for Mines gave me reason to apprehend, to put it no higher than that, that the Government have been terrorised by the mineowners. The hon. Gentleman plainly implied, as I understood him, and I think my deduction is a fair one, that if our Motion were entertained favourably by the House it would mean the end of the Bill.
Why the end of the Hill? If the Government were to accept it, at any rate two sides would be in agreement, namely, the representatives of the miners and the Government, and the only party which would destroy the Bill or refuse to operate it would be the mineowners. Therefore, I am entitled to make the deduction that the Government have been terrorised by the mineowners to such a degree that they cannot even contemplate giving a fair and balanced consideration to the proposals we now put forward. In our judgment this Bill, without this particular Instruction, would be a lop-sided proposal. It is well known to everybody that wages and hours are an almost inseparable conjunction of ideas in connection with mining legislation. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade himself used a phrase, which I think puts that point in a sentence when on Monday last he used these words:
May I turn to another aspect of what is, in fact, the same problem? You cannot disconnect hours and wages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1932; col. 850, Vol. 266.]
Of course not, and yet the right hon. Gentleman presents us with a Bill which deals with hours for an almost indefinite period, and leaves the question of wages almost completely untouched—certainly there is no reference to wages in the Bill. How has the right hon. Gentleman found it possible to disconnect the two? He has achieved what he said on Monday was the impossible. In the passage to which I have just referred he went on to show that if the hours had been reduced to seven from seven and a-half that that would undoubtedly have had an immediate effect upon wages, proving conclusively the soundness of the general proposition that wages and hours are interrelated. Therefore, are we not entitled to argue that if you grant a change of hours in the opposite direction you ought also to visualise and to provide for a change in wages as well? It seems to me, therefore, that by the very terms of his Bill the right hon. Gentleman has denied the truth of a proposition which he himself propounded to the House only on Monday.
May I put this further proposition to the right hon. Gentleman as a distinguished Member of a National Government? In the course of a speech concerning the 1931 Act which has been the sub-
ject of controversy this afternoon the Lord President of the Council said the then Prime Minister had declared that that Bill did not provide the mineowners with a victory, did not give the miners a victory, it gave nobody a victory. The right hon. Gentleman could not say the same about this Bill. We were then a minority Government, but this is a National Government, which could afford to be independent of these small bodies of mineowners or miners; which, if it cared, could afford to rise above the whole scene of the battle, and give an independent and unbiased judgment. But no; the right hon. Gentleman cannot say this afternoon that this Bill gives no victory to the mineowners, for most emphatically it does, as I shall propose to show. It seems to me that the Secretary for Mines entirely misses the point concerning our objection to the absence of guarantees about wages. I do not think we can blame the mineowners for looking after their side of the discussion, any more than any one would be disposed to blame the miners for looking after their side of it. What the mineowners are mainly concerned with is hours, and the miners are concerned primarily with wages.
In this Bill, as I understand it, the mineowner is guaranteed a stabilisation of conditions in respect of hours for an indefinite period of time, which may be-five years, or, if in the intervening period the draft Convention of Geneva is ratified, until the necessary legislation can be carried to give effect to that Convention. How about the miners? See what happens. The President of the Board of Trade does not seem to be quite seized of our apprehension in this matter. The miners naturally, as bargainers, do not want the problem of hours to be determined out of relation to wages, but the moment you wish to reopen the discussion concerning wages next year when you have again to approach this problem, the mineowner will not have the same inducement to enter a discussion with as much reasonableness as they have now. The mineowner will say: "I have my share of the bargain guaranteed, and therefore I am not interested. I am in-possession, and I have nine points of the law on my side. I am going to stick to my position." What does the poor miner get next year? Nothing at all. The wages point has gone. It seems tome that the Secretary for Mines has
missed what is an essential part of the miners' case, and he has given to the mineowners a concession of the utmost value. I challenge the Secretary for Mines to deny that proposition. In fact, it cannot be denied and that is the critical point in the present situation.
May I make another observation? We have been invited on this side of the House to attach great significance to some paper guarantees which have been given. I do not wish to sit in judgment on the mineowners on this question, but I think I am entitled to ask as to how far those guarantees are binding. Take the case of Mr. Gibson, the Secretary of the South Wales Mineowners Association. He gives an undertaking. Does Mr. Gibson bind every single coalowner in South Wales, or does he only bind those coalowners who happen to be members of the Coalowners Association in South Wales? So we might go on all over the country. Clearly, according to the speech of the Secretary for Mines himself, the coalowners outside the Coalowners Association are not bound by these guarantees. We have already been informed that the Kent Coalowners cannot be regarded as being bound by these verbal undertakings. [An HON. MEMBER: "That has been settled."] It seems to me, therefore, that the question of these guarantees is a matter of great importance, and we should like to know whether they are binding on all coalowners whether they are members of the Coalowners Association or not.
The question has been asked: What better off would the miners be if they had a guarantee in the Bill concerning wages? My reply is that we should be as much better off as the coalowners, no more and no less. Whatever benefit there is in regard to guarantees to the coalowners concerning hours, I think we should have similar guarantees concerning wages. We want the Government to give us as much as they have given to the coalowners. We ask for no more and no less. We want the Government to be fair in this matter. Why should the Government regard themselves as being compelled to give a concession to one side of the bargain, and withhold it from the other? The Secretary for Mines has referred to the moral guarantee, and he stated that that ought to be enough for
the coal miners. If it ought to be enough for the coal miners, then the same concession ought to be enough for the coalowners. Why should the Government give a form of guarantee to one side and not to the other side? There is no answer to that question. I think the Government, who profess to be acting in the national interest, have been very unfair in the way in which they have presented this legislation to the House. Surely, there is nobody who would dare to get up in a public assembly and attempt to defend the present wages paid to miners in any part of the country.
There is another point which I would like to emphasise. So many people when speaking about miners' wages deal with the subject from the standpoint of wages which they think ought to be paid. The President of the Board of Trade should not forget that in some of the newer mining 'areas like my own such is the incidence of the present crisis upon the coal trade that many of the miners are not allowed to work for much more than three or four days per week.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I do not think that on this Instruction the hon. Gentleman is entitled to go into the question as to how much wages are actually paid. The Instruction is merely to enable Section 2 of the Coal Mines Act, 1931, to be continued, and the hon. Member must confine his remarks to that question.

Mr. JONES: I was keeping that point in mind. No one has even ventured to attempt to defend these proposals in regard to wages, and what the Government are now asking the House to do is to stabilise a state of things which at the best is extremely deplorable, and, I might almost say, frightful. Let the House remember that we are being asked to stabilise something which in point of fact is a condition of things under which many of these miners are unable to provide for those dependent upon them in any measure of comfort. If that be so, it seems to me that to invite people who have become almost desperate to contemplate having their present conditions prejudiced is an almost impossible proposition. I think the case against this proposal is quite overwhelming. There is not the slightest doubt that the balance of the scales has been held unfairly as between the miners and the mineowners,
and I hope the House for that reason will give us wholehearted support in regard to the proposal which has been put before the House.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I have already spoken on this Motion, and cannot speak again without the leave of the House; but I only intervene to make a short announcement on a subject about which I spoke just now. Last night the subject of the Kent coalfield was referred to, and, very naturally, questions were raised in regard to it, notably by one of the earlier speakers this afternoon. Since I have been in the House to-day, I have been able to meet the representative of the Kent coalowners, and I am happy to state that he has signed the guarantee with the others. I say nothing more than that. I am sure that those who are opposed to the Government's Bill will be equally glad with ourselves that no one is now left outside the guarantee, and, as far as I know, the whole output of the country is covered. The difficulty that has arisen has arisen mainly through a misunderstanding. Therefore, I would like to say, for the Kent coalowners, that there was no attempt to break faith in the matter,

but undoubtedly, owing to the exceptional circumstance, to which I referred earlier in the afternoon, that they alone were not members of the Mining Association, some trouble has arisen with which we as the Government were not concerned. Upon the facts being placed before them, they are of course anxious, with the others, that the guarantee should be given, and in this connection I would like to mention that I think the excellent result that has been secured is in no small measure attributable to the efforts that have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour), who raised the matter last night and who has concerned himself closely with it this morning. I think he recognised that the reputation of his county was somewhat involved in this matter, and I would like, on behalf of the Government, to thank him for his assistance.

Question put,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert a provision to continue Section two of the Coal Mines Act, 1931, with respect to calculation of wages.

The House divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 271.

Division No. 205.]
AYES.
[5.28 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McKeag, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cowan, D. M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Curry, A. C.
Kirkwood, David
Wallhead, Richard C.


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Edge, Sir William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William



Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Groves and Mr. John


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McGovern, John



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Balniel, Lord
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)


Albery, Irving James
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Browne, Captain A. C.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Bateman, A. L.
Buchan, John


Allen, Lt -Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Burnett, John George


Aske, Sir Robert William
Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Caine, G. R. Hall.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Castlereagh, Viscount


Atholl, Duchess of
Boulton, W. W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Atkinson, Cyril
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Chalmers, John Rutherford


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-Ie-Spring)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Remer, John R.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Chotzner, Alfred James
Ker, J. Campbell
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Conant, R. J. E.
Knight, Holford
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cook, Thomas A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cooper, A. Duff
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Law, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Crooks, J. Smedley
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Levy, Thomas
Savery, Samuel Servington


Davison, Sir William Henry
Liddall, Walter S.
Scone, Lord


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dickie, John P.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Donner, P. W.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Doran, Edward
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Drewe, Cedric
Mabane, William
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Duggan, Hubert John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Slater, John


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McKie, John Hamilton
Smithers, Waldron


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll, N.)
Soper, Richard


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Magnay, Thomas
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Manninghan-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stones, James


Fermoy, Lord
Martin, Thomas B.
Storey, Samuel


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Strauss, Edward A.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crlchton-


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Milne, Charles
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitcheson, G. G.
Templeton, William P.


Goldie, Noel B.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, William Shepherd
Thomas, Major L. B.(King's Norton)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Moss, Captain H. J.
Thompson, Luke


Graves, Marjorie
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Munro, Patrick
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Grimston, R. V.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
North, Captain Edward T.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
O'Connor, Terence James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hartland, George A.
Pearson, William G.
Weymouth, Viscount


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peat, Charles U.
White, Henry Graham


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hepworth, Joseph
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Pickering, Ernest H.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hornby, Frank
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Horobin, Ian M.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Withers, Sir John James


Horsbrugh, Florence
Pybus, Percy John
Womersley, Walter James


Howard, Tom Forrest
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsden, E.



Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ray, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Rea, Walter Russell
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir George Penny.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)



Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)



Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance of Part 1 of 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 34 and of s. 1 of 21 & 22 Geo. 5. c. 27.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 1, line 6, at the beginning, insert the words:
Until six months after a commission of inquiry representing all sections of the coal trade (to be appointed forthwith) has reported to Parliament as to the desirability of its further continuance."—[Mr. Martin.]

Leave out Sub-section (1).—[Colonel Clifton Brown.]

In line 8, after the word "force," insert the word "or."

In line 10, leave out the word "thirty-seven," and insert instead thereof the words "thirty-three, whichever is the earlier."

Leave out the word "thirty-seven," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty-three."

In line 11, leave out the word "in."

In line 12, leave out from the word "Act" to the end of the Sub-section, and insert instead thereof the words "shall be deemed to be so amended."— [Mr. Martin.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Martin) to move his first Amendment, I would ask him to do so leaving out the words in brackets—"to be appointed forthwith."

Mr. MARTIN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert the words:
Until six months after a commission of inquiry representing all sections of the coal trade has reported to Parliament as to the desirability of its further continuance.
I move this Amendment on behalf of the Northern Group of Members of this House. The Northern Group have been considering this problem for some time, and have come to an almost unanimous decision in regard to it. Perhaps, before I proceed to deal with the categorical questions at issue, I should read the Clause as it would stand if my Amendments were included in it. It would then read as follows:
Until six months after a commission of inquiry representing all sections of the coal
trade has reported to Parliament as to the desirability of its further continuance, Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930 (which is limited to expire on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-two) shall continue in force., or until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, whichever is the earlier, and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines; and, accordingly Section 10 of that Act shall be deemed to be so amended.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As the hon. Member has read the Clause as he proposes to amend it, and as in that form it covers several Amendments standing in his name, I think I ought to say that I am assuming that if the Committee so desire we should take a general discussion on this matter on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown), to leave out Sub-section (1). I called on the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Martin) in order that he might raise the point as to whether an inquiry from outside on Part I of the Act is or is not desirable, and I would ask him to confine his argument to that point.

Mr. MARTIN: I submit to your Ruling, but I understand that it will be in order if I deal with my consequential Amendments at the same time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would further explain to the hon. Member that two of his Amendments propose to alter the date, and, therefore, are not consequential on his first two Amendments; as, if those Amendments were not moved, his two first Amendments would still be in order.

Mr. MARTIN: I will deal with the question on the first Amendment. I would point out, in the first place, that we in the Northern Group are interested in the coal trade, and more particularly in the export coal trade. We represent largely the counties of Northumberland and Durham, which are exporting districts, and, therefore, it is of great concern to us that the criticisms which have been levelled against Part I of the Act of 1930 should be taken into consideration by the House. Accordingly, we have framed this Amendment, proposing a commission of inquiry, in order that those criticisms may be given full consideration by His Majesty's Government. Perhaps I may be allowed here to say that the
Northern Group set up a Coal Sub-Committee to examine those criticisms in detail, and, as Secretary of that Sub-Committee, I produced the report which was accepted by the majority of the Northern Group. In that report we deal with the inequalities and evasions which have been represented to us as arising from the operation of Part I of the Act of 1930.
Perhaps at this stage a summary of the position may be of some use to the Committee. In the first place, the experts who came to give evidence to us in the Northern Group criticised the provisions as to price regulation. They said that the regulation of minimum prices does not work satisfactorily. They said, secondly, that the quota machinery was most unsatisfactory, particularly in the exporting districts. The criticism was that quota was very often lacking when orders from abroad were not lacking, and that, therefore, such orders were lost to our trade because of the lack of available quota at the moment. The lack of quota in such cases was usually due to the fact that the machinery was too slow in its working—that, although they applied for an increase of quota, by the time it was granted the order had been lost. A third criticism came mainly from the sellers of coal and from exporters. They maintained that they were forced to adopt illegal measures contrary to the Act in order to get any business which was flowing in their direction. Those illegal measures are so various that I will not attempt to enumerate them.
Another criticism was that some companies form subsidiary selling companies —that they sell their coal at the minimum price to a company with which they are in close co-operation, and that, afterwards, that coal is sold at less than the minimum price, thereby enabling the original company to evade the provisions of Part I of the Act. We were also told that, owing to the quota system, and also to the minimum price, we were not able to get the advantages which should have been bestowed upon us by the drop in the value of the pound sterling abroad. Also a very important criticism was that the minimum price tended to become the maximum price land that coal buyers abroad, seeing our minimum price,
were able to get from other sellers abroad lower quotations, which made our minimum price the maximum price we could possibly ask. The final criticism that I will enumerate was that inefficient collieries were kept going at the expense of the more efficient.
The Secretary for Mines has told us that all these criticisms—and more—are perfectly familiar to him and his Department, but the point at issue is whether he intends to leave it to the coalowners themselves, as bound by the machinery of Part I of the Act, to remedy these things, or whether he himself intends to make any representations which will, if not force them, at least urge them to bring forward the necessary reforms. The Secretary for Mines suggested that
the obligation rests upon the industry to check these evasions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1932; col. 1016, Vol. 266.]
The Act has been in operation for some considerable time, sufficiently long to enable the owners to have seen the evasions and the methods by which they could be prevented, and yet nothing has been brought forward even as far as the Mines Department. I asked categorically if the Mines Department have had any suggestions or recommendations on these points from the district boards or the Central Board set up under the Act. The reply was, "No." In other words, the owners have not attempted to find a remedy for those very things of which a great many of their number have been complaining. The most extraordinary thing is that most of the criticisms that we have heard have come from the coal-owners. We suggest, therefore, that the Government should definitely take action themselves and that a commission of inquiry should be set up within a very reasonable time—not an indefinite time —to report to the Department and to Parliament on methods to remedy the defects in the operation of the Act and also to indicate remedies which will be more far-reaching in reorganising and rehabilitating the industry. I note in the "Daily Telegraph" to-day a very important statement which, perhaps, follows on what the Minister indicated in his speech. After referring to the evasions and so on in the operation of the Act, this statement says:
These are matters for adjustment, and a new Mines Bill is contemplated for the autumn Session, smoothing out the rough
places and assuring, so far as legislation and industrial experience can do it, the creation of an elastic and satisfactory process of coal production and marketing.
It is very interesting, after the speeches that we have heard, to hear the suggestion that there should be a new Mines Bill in the autumn, and I, therefore, ask the Minister to make a categorical statement on that point, because it is not so important to us that there should be a committee of inquiry within a stated period if the Minister himself has any idea at the back of his mind, or even a little further forward than the back of his mind, to produce a new Bill within 12 months. If he can state that such a Bill will be forthcoming after due consideration by all sections of the industry, obviously our Amendment is of no avail, but, if he cannot give that categorical statement, I think we have put forward the best form of ensuring that the industry shall have further and more definite treatment than it is having in this Bill. I would particularly ask the Minister also to indicate how it is proposed to co-ordinate the district working of this new Bill, which continues Part I of the old Act. Section 3 (4) of the 1930 Act empowered district boards to
 collect from the owners of coal mines in the district levies for the purpose of facilitating the sale of any class of coal produced in the district.
Once more the Ministry stated that there have been no schemes brought forward under that Section. The same answer was given when I asked if any scheme had been suggested under Part I, Section 2 (2, d) for coordinating the operation of district schemes. Nothing had been done and the Ministry had no particular scheme to suggest. Therefore, if the Minister has no definite new Bill to bring forward and if the owners are not bringing forward any new schemes under the powers given in Part I, I can only say that, the question of wages apart, we feel that this Amendment will meet the case for a full inquiry, which will help to bring reorganisation, stabilisation, and, finally, I hope, greater peace within the industry. I have full confidence that, if the Minister cannot give that categorical statement in reply to the quotation that have given from a newspaper, he will not find difficulty in giving consideration to and, I hope, in accepting the Amendment.

Mr. DICKIE: In supporting the Amendment, I do not propose to follow hon. Members opposite in their incursions into the history of the mining industry during the past 20 years, to revive the almost forgotten controversies of the Sankey Commission, or to attempt to analyse the reasons why the recommendations of the Samuel Commission were not adopted. The dismal, dreary road which has led us to the present impasse is strewn with the litter of inquiries into the condition of the mining industry. We have had the Sankey Commission with seven distinct Reports, all differing, the Macmillan. Report, the Buckmaster Report, the Lewis Inquiry into co-operative selling, the report of the Samuel Commission and others. It may be said that we are asking for another, but the whole condition of the industry has altered. These things belong to past history. The industry is faced with new and difficult problems. This is no time for destructive criticism. The Government are faced with an extremely difficult position in the industry, and that is the reason why each and every one of us in every part of the House has to do as much as in us lies to help the Government in the difficult task with which they are confronted. As one who was elected on a pledge to give unqualified support to the National Government, I am profoundly astonished and bitterly disappointed that the National Government could bring forward, in order to deal with this fundamental, basic industry, only a proposal perpetuating and stabilising an Act of Parliament which many Ministers themselves condemned when it was introduced and which in my judgment has done very serious injury to the export industry. [Interruption.] I fail to understand the reason for that interruption. The export trade is to-day the most important part of the industry.
6.0 p.m.
I am astonished that the Government, at a time when Parliament and the country are greatly concerned with the question of the balance of trade, should have brought forward no proposal for dealing with the export trade in coal, because that trade is declining. Outward cargoes largely help to pay for the food and raw materials which we import, and the freights of our shipping are not an inconsiderable portion of our invisible
exports. I thought the Government would have recognised the importance of that trade. It is steadily declining and, the further it declines, the more difficult it will be to restore the balance of payments. The position is daily growing more serious and, because of that, I propose to address myself principally to the position of the export part of the industry. In 1913 we exported 98,000,000 tons. To-day that has fallen to 61,000,000. I want to separate the figures for bunkers and for cargo. The figures for cargo in 1913 were 73,000,000 tons and for 1931 43,000,000 tons, a drop of 30,000,000 tons. I wish to call the attention of the Committee and of His Majesty's Government to a very significant fact which, as far as I am aware, has not been brought out as yet in the Debate. While it is true that our export trade in coal has been declining steadily ever since the end of the War, the drop was only 13,000,000 tons between 1913 and 1929. In 16 years the drop was only 13,000,000 tons, yet there is the extremely significant fact that from 1929 to 1931 the export trade in coal declined by no less than 17,000,000 tons. In the first year of the operation of the Act of Parliament the export trade in coal declined by no less than 12,000,000 tons. That was immediately after the placing of the Act upon the Statute Book. [Interruption.] It was the first complete year the Act was in operation. In his speech yesterday the Secretary for Mines eulogised very highly the Memorandum prepared by the Miners' Federation. It is an excellent document, but I should like to call his attention to the particular part of the Memorandum which says:
Despite the pressure of great forces all tending to lower the general price level, the Act has succeeded in maintaining that level without loss of trade.
I ask the Minister of Mines, the President of the Board of Trade, and those who are responsible for the policy of the Miners' Federation, if it is a true statement of the position of the export trade when we have lost 12,000,000 tons in one year, the first year the Act of Parliament has been in operation. That is a fair question to ask, and one to which the Committee are entitled to receive an answer. It is true to say that the country
has been passing through what has been called an economic blizzard, but I decline to believe that the whole of this tremendous drop in the export trade of coal is due to that cause. In searching for a cause, I have come definitely to the conclusion, after months of examination and discussion, and after weeks in this House of consultation with my colleagues and experts, that there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that a very large proportion of the tremendous decline is due to the Act of Parliament of 1930.
The objections to the Act, particularly as far as the export trade is concerned, are quotas and minimum prices. I am prepared to concede that both those things in the home market may be good things. Given the goodwill of the owners on the one hand and of the men on the other, I see no reason why there should not be a raising of the price level in the home market, always provided that adequate safeguards are given to the heavy industries, such as iron and steel and other industries, which must of necessity produce at the lowest possible cost in order to enable them to sell their commodities in the neutral markets of the world. But there is a very wide field in which the price level could be raised with great advantage to the miners, mineowners and the nation as a whole without doing the slightest injury to any section of the community. With co-operation in the districts and co-ordination between the districts, I see no reason why it should not be accomplished. I am speaking of the pithead price. It is a very important distinction. It is the price at the pithead which should be raised so that any increase in the price should go to the benefit of the industry and not be frittered away on the middlemen.
The foreign market is in a different position. It has always been an astonishing thing to me that this fact was not universally recognised at the time the Act was placed upon the Statute Book. Those who prophesied a decline in our foreign trade have been fully justified. Had the Act contained, as originally intended, a levy on inland coal as is now proposed by the Miners' Federation, the decline in our export trade might have been averted, but in the form in which the Act was placed
upon the Statute Book, it was simply inviting disaster. Some of the most prominent coalowners and coal exporters in the north of England actually foretold what would happen when the question of a levy was thrown overboard, for they declared that the only good thing in the Act had been taken out of it, and that the Act was bound inevitably to bring something akin to ruin to the export trade. The prophecy is well on the way to being fulfilled. Even in these difficult times the; home demand for coal remains fairly stationary, while the failure to maintain our foreign trade has meant that the blow has fallen like a blight upon the export areas represented by those who sit on these benches and by one or two of my hon. Friends on the other side of the Committee. Without a shadow of doubt, the blow which has fallen upon the export areas is, in part, at all events, directly attributable to the ill-considered and disastrous combination of quotas and minimum prices.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I did not hear the beginning of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to know how he relates these arguments to the Amendment before the Committee? The only point upon the Amendment is whether there should be an inquiry or not before the Act is extended or continued.

Mr. DICKIE: These are the facts leading up to, and demonstrating the need for, the inquiry and, surely, I am entitled to lay before the Committee the condition of the industry in order to demonstrate the need for some immediate action?

The CHAIRMAN: ; I interrupted the hon. Member with a certain apology because I did not hear the beginning of his speech, but at the same time I must tell him that this is not a sufficient Debate upon which to hang a general discussion of the position of the coal trade as a whole and all its details. He must confine his remarks to arguments in favour of having an inquiry before continuing the Act which is at present in operation.

Mr. DICKIE: I defer to your Ruling, but I submit that I must, in the interests of the industry as a whole, give an illustration of what is happening to the industry, and particularly to the North Eastern area, and to show the need for
an inquiry into the state of the industry in that part of the coalfields. Hon. Members opposite for a considerable time have been endeavouring to show that the decline in export trade is due to the policy of the National Government. That is untrue, because, as I have already pointed out, the major portion of the fall took place prior to the National Government coming into office. These quotas and restrictions and that sort of thing are undoubtedly having an effect upon the export trade. One of my greatest disappointments is that His Majesty's Government have not as yet—at all events I have not heard the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary for Mines make any announcement—any plans for meeting the discriminatory tariffs, quotas and percentages which are hitting us so hard, and which are in operation in practically every part of Europe against the British exporting interests. Of the 12,000,000 tons which were lost, the share of the River Tyne was no less than 3,100,000 tons. The total of 11,200,000 tons which we exported in 1930 declined to 8,100,000 tons in 1931, so that the Committee will readily see how very hard this particular district has been hit. It is true that a small proportion of that decrease, as the Secretary for Mines and also the President of the Board of Trade are well aware, is due to the fact that a small portion of the coal previously shipped from the Tyne has been diverted to other ports, notably Blythe and the River Wear, but it cannot be gainsaid that the decline in export trade both nationally and as far as the North East coast is concerned is mainly due to the operation of the Act of Parliament.
I do not like to trouble the Committee very much with figures, but it has been continually stated that we are suffering from a world economic blizzard and that while we have suffered others have also suffered. It is continually said that others have suffered more than we have suffered. It is true in a sense, but it is not true as far as the export trade in coal is concerned when we consider the position of our European competitors. I have told the Committee that we dropped 12,000,000 tons from 1930 to 1931. Poland with a production of 12,296,000 tons increased her export of coal by 1,123,000 tons or 9.1 per cent. Germany declined only 4.3 per cent. while we declined 22.1
per cent. Holland increased her exports of coal by 6.2 per cent., and Belgium increased her export by no less than 1,780,000 tons, mainly to France, or no less than 45.77 per cent. The Secretary for Mines has informed us that in the days before the War we exported 98 per cent. of the coal into the Scandinavian market and that that export to-day had fallen to something like 34 or 35 per cent. Our objections to the quotas are that the allocations from the Central Council are based upon the output for the corresponding quarter in the year before. That is to say, that for this year they are based on the corresponding quarter of last year, which was the time when the amount of coal being raised was restricted on account of the operation of the Act. The result is that the allocation is smaller. As the export trade declines, the allocation from the Central Council to the District Council grows less, and, if the vicious circle continues, the export trade in coal will disappear altogether. In Durham, the standard tonnage was fixed for the individual collieries based upon the 1929 output, and the quota was given to each on a percentage of the standard tonnage, based on the allocation to the district by the Central Council.
Another objection that we have, and one to which a good deal of attention has been drawn during these Debates, is the fact that this wretched quota system is absolutely maintaining what I call the uneconomic pits. I am in complete agreement with the view that it is extremely difficult to tell what is a marginal colliery, what is an uneconomic pit, but those of us who know the coalfields know perfectly well that the uneconomic pits are being maintained at the expense of the efficient and economic units in the industry. The Samuel Commission's Report was regarded at the time that it was published as one of the most impartial and most valuable documents ever issued in connection with any industry, and that Report said:
If all the undertakings could come up to the level of the efficient and the larger ones the problem of restoring prosperity to the industry would be a long way nearer a solution.
It is very little satisfaction to an efficient colliery concern to know that if it exhausts its quota it has the right to
buy a quota from an inefficient and not altogether up-to-date colliery. That is penalising efficiency and putting a premium on inefficiency, and that is happening all over the country. Not only that, but if they produce more than their quota they have the satisfaction of being fined 2s. 6d. a ton. In no other industry would such a state of things be tolerated.
There is another objectionable feature, which I consider to be the worst in the whole Act, and that is the question of minimum prices. Minimum prices may be advantageous perhaps in the home markets. Such an inquiry as we propose in the Amendment would demonstrate whether or not that is so. Although these minimum prices may be advantageous in the home market, they are, in my judgment and in the judgment of some of my hon. Friends, nothing but an unmixed evil so far as our foreign trade is concerned. This question of a fixed price and the minimum tending to become the maximum is the worst feature in the Act of Parliament. It can result only and has resulted only in the handing over of a very large amount of business to our foreign competitors. Our foreign competitors have no restrictions; they have complete freedom to compete. Ever since the stoppage of 1926—I am not going into the question of who was to blame and I am not seeking to impute responsibility—the coalowners of the North of England have been faced with the very difficult task of getting back the markets which they lost in seven months when the field was left absolutely open. They were just on the point of regaining those markets and were working steadily up to the old position when this Act was placed upon the Statute Book, and ever since then they have gone steadily backwards.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member be good enough to give us the export figures in 1928–29 and 1929–30 to justify the statement that he has made that we were getting back to our old position?

Mr. DICKIE: I have not the whole of the figures. I am putting the figures which I thought would justify my argument. I have not the slightest doubt that the full figures would be illuminating. [Interruption.] I have taken the period 1929–30. The figures are available
and I have shown that they were steadily coming back. I have not the slightest doubt that if the hon. Member will look at the figures he will see that I was right in saying that we were slowly climbing back to our original position. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Yes, in the whole country in addition to the North-East Coast, but ever since this Act was placed on the Statute Book we have gone steadily back. I am not endeavouring to make the point that it is all attributable to the Act of Parliament. Part of it is due to the economic blizzard which has assailed every country in the world, but if it is possible for Poland, Holland and Belgium to increase their export trade, why should we be the only big exporting country which suffers a decline?

Mr. GEOFFREY ELLIS: The hon. Member forgets the subsidies in those countries.

Mr. DICKIE: I do not. I am appealing to the Secretary for Mines, the President of the Board of Trade and His Majesty's Government to find some means oil meeting this competition, to regain the markets we have lost and to got our pits working efficiently again. Those are the points that will be brought out if we have an inquiry into the conditions of the industry. Minimum prices have a treble effect. They make it easy for the competitor. The price is known. In what other industry would you find a manufacturer giving away his figures to his competitors? The result is that the competitors have only to quote 1d. or 2d. lower and the order is theirs. That is the position under the minimum price. It also deprives the exporter of any bargaining power when he tries to get a contract. The price is fixed and—this is one of the most iniquitous parts of the Act— he has to take the same price for 1,000 tons as for 100,000 tons. That ought to be remedied as speedily as possible. Moreover, it creates in the minds of the foreign buyer a feeling of resentment, because he has the idea that we are asking more than a competitive price for the article we are selling, and that makes him nationalistic in sentiment.
What is the position of the seller and importer? We must have someone to sell our coal. On the other side of the House the exporters have been described as parasites, but under whatever system we
have, whether we have a central selling agency or not, we must have someone to market the coal. In these days we are told to develop the art of salesmanship. We read articles in the newspapers and we are told by important personages to equip ourselves and go into the world to tell the world what we have to sell. The coal exporter has equipped himself, but when he goes abroad to do that under this Act of Parliament he has both hands tied behind his back. He cannot move hand or foot because his price is fixed. The cheapjack in the market or the guileless oriental who goes aboard the ocean liner to sell his wares is on velvet and in a happy and privileged position compared with the coal exporter who goes abroad, because he has his minimum price, but he does not broadcast it to the world and to his competitors. We hear a. great deal of the art of salesmanship, and an inquiry such as we suggest would show that there is great need for it and great scope for good salesmanship in the marketing of British coal.
There is one other thing upon which I should like to touch and I will do so with some delicacy. There must be something fundamentally wrong in an Act of Parliament which makes hitherto honourable business men resort to tactics of which they would never have thought had this Act not been on the Statute Book. It is common talk that shifts and evasions are going on under this Act of Parliament. There is something wrong, and this House ought to put it right, when an Act of Parliament causes such acts on the part of honourable business men who would not think of doing such things except that they are faced by the fact that their businesses are going to be ruined. The Secretary for Mines suggests that it is the duty of the districts to correct that sort of thing. I suggest to the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade that it would be infinitely better that the Department should remove the cause of these things. An inquiry would show that these things are done because people are in a desperate position. On the North-East Coast a desperate position is growing up so far as the export trade is concerned.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Can the hon. Member tell us whether, in fact, the majority of the Mining Association of Durham is in favour of the continuation of Part I?

Mr. DICKIE: I am coming to that, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for asking the question. Before I answer it I would point out, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry), that the quota has closed colliery after colliery in the county of Durham.

Mr. BATEY: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street never made that statement.

Mr. DICKIE: I am within the recollection of the Committee. He not only mentioned it to-day, but he has mentioned it many times. He has called the attention of the Minister of Mines to that fact.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I know the hon. Member does not want to misrepresent the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). Is it not the case that when the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street has referred to quotas closing down Durham collieries he has always referred to the German and French quotas? Is it not the case that in not one of the four quarters of 1931 has Durham produced within 1,000,000 tons of their allocation?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. DICKIE: I have no desire to do the hon. Member an injustice. It is correct that he has attributed the closing of collieries to quotas and percentages, but I was not dealing with that but with the simple fact, which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, myself and every mining Member in the county of Durham knows, that those collieries are closing down because of lost trade. When these collieries close down the burden becomes heavier for every other colliery, because the social services have to be maintained. We have not a very economical county council in Durham. The social services and other services in the county of Durham have to be maintained and as collieries close the burden becomes heavier on those which remain, with the result that it is more difficult still to obtain orders for the coal we have to sell in the markets of the world. That is a condition of things which an inquiry into the mining industry would
reveal so far as the North-East coast is concerned. The Secretary for Mines has asked me to deal with the position of the owners. The owners of the county of Northumberland are overwhelmingly against any continuance of Part I.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: No.

Mr. DICKIE: That is a point which should be cleared up. The chairman of the largest group in the county of Northumberland is one of my constituents. He is strongly opposed to this Act, and has publicly declared that he is opposed to it. Yesterday morning I had a letter from the managing director of the second largest group of collieries in the county, and he says that in his opinion the continuance of Part I is disastrous. That is the view of the two largest groups in the county of Northumberland, and everyone knows that the smaller companies are in almost every case opposed to the continuance of Part I.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I think the actual facts should be known for the whole of the county before the hon. Member says that the owners are overwhelmingly in favour of the repeal of Part I. To quote one or two letters is not quite evidence.

Mr. DICKIE: It only shows that there is need for an inquiry in order that these points should be settled. I can assure the Secretary for Mines that on Newcastle quayside, and everywhere where coal matters are talked, it is accepted by a majority of two to one that the Northumberland coalowners are opposed to the continuance of Part I. I know that from personal knowledge. The position of Durham is somewhat different. It is difficult to know what is the position of the Durham Mining Association, but I can assure the Secretary for Mines that there is a very largo volume of opinion in the county of Durham, where the difficulties are great because it is not only an exporting county but also a county which deals with inland coal, which is opposed to the continuance of the Act in any shape or form. If he will lift the export section from the operation of this Act, then those who are in favour of it will heave a sigh of relief. The reason why I am stressing these points is that we are miners' Members. There is a new type of miners' Member in this Parliament.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about after the next General Election?

Mr. DICKIE: I must reply like the late Lord Oxford, "Wait and see!" The hon. Member is an engineer, so am I; and a little fraternity may not be out of place. We who sit on these benches have lived all our lives under the shadow of the chimneys of the collieries. We know the life of the miner as well as any hon. Member opposite. We do not appeal to sentiment. We could if we chose to do so. We could paint just as harrowing a picture of the hunger, poverty, hardship and distress which exist in our constituencies as any hon. Member opposite, and if we refrain from playing upon sentiment it is because we know that these hard hit areas have already the sympathy of the House of Commons. All the sympathy and sentiment in the world will not open a single colliery, secure a single order or put one man into employment. We appeal to the National Government to carry out the mandate for which they were elected and do everything in their power to restore something like prosperity to this fundamental industry. I submit that one of the ways to do this is to set up this court of inquiry in order to find out the means by which the desires of the whole House may be achieved.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I rise to oppose the Amendment. I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with hon. Members from the North-East coast, but the interests of the exporting districts are much allied to the interests of districts which supply the home market. When exporting districts are doing badly we know it, because they invade the inland markets. We suffer when they suffer. I had an opportunity of watching the quota system in work in South Yorkshire for several years before it came into play over the rest of the country. It would be quite out of order for me to relate my experience of the voluntary quota scheme, but it was a scheme without a minimum price, and at seemed to work quite well for a time until other circumstances came in. When the compulsory scheme came in a minimum price was felt to be a necessary adjunct. I have been deeply disappointed with the working of the minimum price and have felt that I should like to see the scheme go because of its injurious and unfair effects. But I have come to the con-
clusion, much as I have suffered personally from the infractions of other people who have not played the game with regard to the minimum price, who have wangled it, that it would be much worse to start again a period of uncertainty, such as the Amendment proposes, than to continue suffering a little bit longer under the evasions and wanglings of the minimum price. To throw the whole thing into the melting pot would be much worse.
I agree that we must get rid of these abuses. It can be done best by those in the industry who know how these evasions take place, but I say this, that if within a reasonable time the central board and the district boards do not deal with these things then the Secretary for Mines, I hope, will. These legal evasions and illegal evasions must not be allowed to go on. Illegal evasions, I know, are very difficult to find out, but the legal evasions are known, and they could be stopped under the scheme.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Will the hon. Member give us his opinion as to whether or not the uncertainty as to the continuance of Part I has been a contributing factor to evasion, and whether we may expect a continuance of Part I to check evasion?

Sir S. ROBERTS: My answer to that is that the uncertainty as to whether Part I is to be continued has prevented other owners taking the matter seriously in hand, because they did not know what was going to happen. A great many people were willing to imagine that it would go at the end of the year when they saw the change of Government, and no serious effort has yet been made to deal with it. When I have inquired about the matter, some of the answers were much to that effect. If there is a five years' period of certainty, it ought to encourage those people who are managing the scheme to see that legal evasions are stopped and to look out for the illegal evasions, which are difficult to find. But I still maintain the point that the Secretary for Mines should let the various district boards and central body know that if they do not stop evasions of the minimum price the Government will do it for them. It sometimes makes one almost despair when one finds efforts for regulating the industry set at naught by
people within the industry who, for the sake of a particular contract, will spoil the best possible scheme.
I feel that the Amendment will not really help us. I agree that those who have put their names to it desire the scheme to be continued, but this type of Amendment is very often a disguised attack on the Clause of the Bill. It is a common method for drafting an Amendment to say that the Clause shall not come into force until there has been an inquiry, and, therefore, one is apt to look rather suspiciously at the form of the Amendment. At the same time, I honestly believe that those who have put their names to it really desire that the matter should be inquired into, but I feel that if we are not to know whether the scheme is to go on or not the scramble and dog fight will become worse than ever. I remember that about a year ago, just before the minimum price came into operation, the scramble was to fix up contracts with gas companies at the old prices, perfectly legal, running well into the year 1934. At the present moment, because of the uncertainty as to how long the Act will be in force, purchasers of coal are reluctant to enter into contracts at the present legal price. I think the Amendment would bring worse chaos into this distressed industry.
I am not going to deal with the sorrows of the mining industry. During the last to years we have discussed these matters again and again, and, in spite of all that has been said, I think that the coal industry has held its head above the storm of the economic blizzard better than almost any other industry. We are in a better position than the iron and steel industry, or the cotton industry. I think that that result has been brought about very largely by the organisation which the much abused coalowners have brought into the industry in the past. It was a voluntary scheme that came from South Yorkshire and neighbouring districts originally. It originated in the mind of one of those coalowners who are stigmatised as stick-in-the-mud, stupid, ignorant men. I want to pay a tribute here to Mr. W. Benton Jones, who has put thought and energy and foresight into this subject. If the other coalowners had helped Mr. Jones better than they did to reorganise this industry, I think things would be better now than they are.
I believe that the Government will resist this Amendment. I trust they will, and that the inquiry that is suggested will be undertaken by all sections of the coal industry within that industry, and that all the schemes will be laid on the Table of this House and the Table of the other Chamber. So we can hope to make an end of the defects of which we know. In a trade with a gradually shrinking market regulation is essential.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I would not have intervened but for the speech of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie). The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts), who has just spoken, knows something about mining, both from the productive and the selling side, and his speech ought to carry a great deal more weight than that of any representative who merely speaks for a sectional interest which is far removed from the production of the raw commodity. One hon. Member referred to the northern group. The hon. Member for Consett referred to the north-eastern group. They claim to speak exclusively for exporters of coal. Their first demand is that Part I of the Act of 1930 be subject to some inquiry at which all who are interested in coal could come forward and give evidence. The Secretary for Mines informed us yesterday that the owners almost wholly favoured Part I.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: They were sharply divided. There was a large majority, including the Mining Association of Great Britain, favourable to a continuation of Part I.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Minister says there is a sharp division but a large majority favourable to a continuation of Part I. The Miners' Federation have expressed themselves upon Part I. Therefore, if the mineowners and the 850,000 miners are satisfied with the effect of the operation of Part I, in that it has imported some co-operation into the industry, what other section of the industry do we need to go to for inquiry? Are we to have an inquiry merely because the exporters have tried to put up a case that the price of coal is not as low as it should be, and that consequently we are not exporting as large a tonnage as we ought to export? On the face of it the case of the two hon. Members is absurd and grotesque. The
hon. Member for Consett made great play with the 12,000,000 tons of export coal which we lost in 1931 compared with 1930. He did not tell the Committee that from 1929 to 1930 our exports were reduced by something approaching 6,000,000 tons. He did not tell the Committee that in 1929 our exports increased by 10,000,000 tons over the previous year merely because of an act of God. Europe suffered from a very bad winter, the Baltic was frozen and we had Europe at our feet.

Mr. DICKIE: I think I am within the recollection of the Committee. What I did say that, whilst it was true that the export trade in coal had been steadily declining, yet this 12,000,000 tons decrease took place immediately after the passing of the Act.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But surely the hon. Member will readily admit that the decline in our exports has been taking place since 1924? We were able in 1929 to export a colossal quantity because of the Baltic being frozen, and it was only because of that total that the decline from 1929 to 1931 has been terrific. Would the hon. Member suggest that the quota system was wholly responsible for the Joss of that tonnage?

Mr. DSCKIE: I must protest against being misrepresented. I said that I did not attribute the whole of that decline to the operation of the Act. I said a portion of it was due to economic causes.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is very difficult to know exactly what the hon. Gentleman's argument was. He produced scarcely a single fact or figure in support of his case. Is he aware that in the four quarters of 1931 the Durham coalowners did not produce within 500,000 tons of the allocation for Durham? The coalowners of Durham were permitted in the first quarter of 1931 to produce 9,306,000 tons. They produced 8,500,000 tons, or 800,000 tons less than they could have produced under the quota system.

Mr. CURRY: Does not that show that the owners were unable to sell their coal;

Mr. WILLIAMS: Quite clearly they were unable to sell more coal than they did sell or they would have produced the quantity allowed under the arrangement.

Mr. JENNINGS: They can sell their stocks to-day in the export market, but they are not allowed to do so.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman must understand that if the Durham coalowners, who are business men, had had orders for the extra 800,000 tons in any one of the four quarters, they would have produced the coal and would have sold it. I think the hon. Gentleman will find it extremely difficult to justify the statement that they were unable to sell the coal because of the fixation of prices. The prices in the four quarters of 1931 were not materially higher than the prices in 1929–30. I defy contradiction when I state definitely that the quota system has been responsible practically for the loss of no tonnage at all, either for export or other purposes. The hon. Gentleman represents an export district. Here is a book written by a gentleman whom I do not happen to know, Mr. H. H. Merrett. He is a director of a firm which controls 100 collieries, and he is interested in the export side of the trade, I understand, in South Wales. This is what he said about Part I:
Even if the provisions of the Act have not been perfect, they have at least been protective, and it is quite certain that if no more attractive scheme of control can be submitted to our Government to take its place Part I of the Coal Mines Act will be continued after the end of this year, with Amendments.
From my experience of the export trade find the demand from abroad, I am satisfied that the system of schedule prices has not, by itself, lost us any subtantial volume of business—certainly not as much as would have compensated an appreciably lower general price level.
That clearly is the point. The exporters of coal want coal at the lowest possible prices at which owners or workers will sell it. They do not mind whether the miner is receiving a living wage. They are not concerned about the person who produces the coal, or even whether the colliery proprietor gets any profits or not. What they want is the maximum quantity of coal to sell at any price. It is a sectional interest, therefore. While the hon. Gentleman is justified in representing a shipping port, he must not forget that Part I of the Act of 1930 was designed not to help any particular section but to introduce common sense and co-operation into an industry which has been suffering for a very long period.
Here is Mr. A. W. Archer, vice-chairman of the West Yorkshire Coalowners' Association, on the same subject:
It is clear to me that if Part I of the Act be allowed to lapse, our coal industry would rapidly fall into a state of chaos. The clock of organisational progress would be indefinitely put back. Markets would be flooded with coal and there would be an appalling slump in prices.
7.0 p.m.
What the hon. Gentleman has to do is to satisfy those who have been living in and with the industry for a long period of time that if the price of coal is reduced to a very small point the demand for coal will increase, that there is a possibility of an expansion of trade. All our experience since 1921 has proved that a downward tendency in prices has not brought an expansion of trade. It has, however, brought a reduction in profits, and a reduction in wages to such a point that many colliery proprietors are sick at heart at having to pay their workpeople such a wretched wage. We, who know something about organisation, can submit these figures to Members of the Committee who are strictly impartial and who want to consider the national interests as distinct from sectional interests. At one period in the present year there was in stock in one area 1,364,000 tons of coal, including 568,000 tons in wagons and 684,000 tons on the floor. That was coal produced for which there was no market and which had been emptied out of the colliery trucks on to the floor. When orders are forthcoming, that coal will have to be picked up again at a price. Knowing the coalowners as I do, I know that they would not pay wages for emptying that coal on the floor and for picking it up again if there were any orders available in any country in the world. There need have been no serious shortage of coal since the commencement of the Act of 1930. Slight difficulties did occur in the first few weeks or months, but, since the machine commenced to work, there has been no hardship inflicted on any section of the community.

Mr. JENNINGS: How are we going to get orders for export coal with a fixed minimum price in this country which is above the price that the foreigner is prepared to pay? The result is that those orders go to our continental competitors.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the coalowners have the power to fix the price and they, being reasonable men, as reasonable as business men in other industries, are not going to fix a price which would destroy their trade. We are not going to accept the suggestion that the exporter is the only person capable of fixing a reasonable price. Although we would prefer the workman to have some say in the matter, yet, if one of two sections have to fix the price, we would prefer that the coalowner should fix the price rather than the exporter. For these reasons, we support the Government in the preservation of Part I, because we believe it is a foundation that can be built upon, and we are looking forward to this Government or some other Government building upon it and compelling the recalcitrant coalowners to come into the pool and to be loyal to their colleagues. None of the arguments which have been brought forward ought to convince any Member of the Committee that we ought to destroy a machine which is now working perfectly.

Lieut.-Colonel CRUDDAS: I beg to support this Amendment. In the last two years a great many people have changed their opinions on this question. Owing to Part I coming into operation five months earlier than we expected, some of us have not yet got a clear vision of the whole picture. I knew that I did not see eye to eye with the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie), but I did not know that we were very nearly back to back. We have discussed this matter together and we knew that there was a difference in our views, but, whereas I am asking for an inquiry into the Act, the hon. Member for Consett seems to be asking for its abolition. I will mention to the Committee two cases into which inquiry might be made. The first concerns the composition of the district board. Members of the district board are elected on votes which depend upon output and tonnage. The smaller collieries feel that they are in the minority on the district board and that they do not have their grievances ventilated. I would suggest that one of the things which might be considered is the placing of one or two independent members on the district board. They might be chosen in some such way as the arbitrators are
chosen. I suggest that with diffidence, because I believe that the less you interfere with an industry the better.
I would also suggest an inquiry into a second point. We are always told that the owners have power to make adjustments in the administration. If that is so, why do they not make them? That would be an appropriate matter for inquiry. There is power under Section 3 (4) to make a district levy to facilitate the sale of coal, but they have never done that. We might well ask why they have not done so. Is it that they think the levy would increase the price of coal to the heavy industries? That need not be, because they could exempt heavy industries. I think that it is because in the exporting districts the inland sale of coal is so small that a levy would make no difference to the export price of coal. The owners should get together and consult with those selling inland coal and come to some agreement which would increase the export of coal, and which would enable them to keep out of the inland market. The exporters could bargain that, if areas like Scotland, Durham and South Wales were enabled to increase their exports, they would not compete in the inland trade. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) mentioned last night that he heard that there was going to be a levy to help the price of export coal. Is that to be a national levy or is it a district levy which could be raised at present? The exporting districts are badly in need of a national levy to enable them to increase their export of coal. On these grounds—and these two points are vital to the County of Northumberland—I would ask for an inquiry in the words of this Amendment, and not for the complete destruction of the Act.

Mr. G. ELLIS: The Minister raised a point just now with the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) which is very important from the point of view of the general principle of the Bill. He asked him whether he thought that the various equivocations which have been going on in the trade were the result of any feeling that there was no stability. To many of us that has been the whole point for a considerable time. These schemes have been brought forward, but there has been a general feeling that the Government
were not serious, that possibly the House of Commons would not be serious in. the future, and that we could not possibly get that necessary run of several years, which has now been given to us, which would enable us to settle down, to get on with the job and to devise remedies for the industry within the industry. It is not fair to discuss this matter in the way that the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) did this afternoon. In giving his reasons for the fall of exports, he stressed the effect of the Act while all the other reasons for the fall, which affect exports in a very considerable degree, were passed by with a wave of the band as something almost negligible, in order to get the House to believe that the fall in exports is due to the Act. That is not true, as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) pointed out. This is the first time that the coalowners as such have been given any stability to get on with their own suggestions for the improvement of the trade. It may be the last time that they will get that opportunity, but it is not right for the Commitee to-day to put any obstacle in the way of giving them that opportunity. If they do not take the opportunity, then the judgment will be on their own heads.

Mr. McKEAG: Only a moment is needed for me to support this Amendment, in view of the very able, eloquent and convincing manner in which it was supported by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie). I support this Amendment because I am satisfied, from the inquiries I have made and the information which I have been able to obtain from those intimately connected with the industry, that the export trade of Durham and Northumberland is being gradually strangled by the shackles and restrictions of these provisions. Even worse is the fact that the evasions, to which those who are concerned feel compelled to resort in order to remain in existence, are reducing the export trade in the North-East to a veritable sink of iniquity. Dishonesty is at a premium, and Americanism is becoming rampant in the export trade. It is intolerable that this should be the position among owners and exporters, but there it is, and I do not see how the mere extension of Part I of the Act for a further period of five years is going to provide any remedy. Rather should some other means be devised of freeing
the exporting districts from these hampering and clogging restrictions. That is the real case for an inquiry. There should unquestionably be an inquiry into the operations of Part I.

Mr. MACMILLAN: I wish to explain the reason why I have taken some part in the drafting of these Amendments, and have put my name to them. It is clear from the discussion that there are two wholly different views with regard to Part I. There is the view held by the supporters of laissez faire in general, that we had better abolish the whole system and return to unregulated and uncontrolled competition. There is the other view to which I think the hon. Baronet the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) is now a convert, the progressive view that orderly marketing and control of marketing and production, whether under public or private enterprise, are essential.

Sir S. ROBERTS: May I say that I can by no means be described as a convert to orderly marketing in the coal trade? I made several speeches in the last Parliament upon it, and I supported the Labour Government in their Bill.

Mr. MACMILLAN: What I meant was that the hon. Baronet in his support of orderly marketing seemed to be prepared to ask the Minister to intervene strongly and to enforce the will of the Government. I do not go so far in the Socialistic direction, being always more moderate—more to the right. At any rate, as I say, there are those two different views and it is clear that among those who support this Amendment it is possible to find both those views. It is also true perhaps that even among those who have put their names to the Amendment, there are Members holding the view that we ought to revert to absolute uncontrolled competition, and those who believe that some form of orderly marketing is a necessary condition of modern industry. I belong to the second category, and it is because I feel certain that orderly marketing is a necessary part of the technique of modern industry that I am very anxious that the great experiment which Part I is should be well conducted.
This Amendment is not as some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), seemed to think, an Amendment terminating Part I. It is an Amendment proposing to go on with Part I until there is an inquiry and to go on with it for six months after an inquiry with the object of forcing the Government of the day to legislate on the results of that inquiry. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that all these matters are proceeding, and that everything is ready for such an inquiry both into Part I and what is more important, into Part II. If the Minister can tell us that this Amendment is not necessary because this inquiry is taking place and will be carried out, I, for one, shall be satisfied. As I say I believe it to be a necessary condition in modern industry that there should be orderly controlled marketing—control extending I hope eventually to production—and with all the faults which the system has shown in its first experimental stage I want that system to succeed. I am anxious to avoid anything which may endanger it or cause a reaction against it. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to tell us that he is giving all his attention to the amendment of the scheme where it is found necessary, in order to make it a success in the future.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I suggest to the Committee that it would be an advantage if we had a full discussion upon what is a matter of grave importance, namely, the continuation of Part I, upon the Amendment suggested just now by the Chairman of the Committee. It is a pity that we should occupy too much of our time upon a limited Amendment as to whether or not there should be an inquiry. We are anxious that the whole of the time should be given so that we may be able to ascertain the opinions of those who come from different parts of the country upon this important question. The suggestion is that if this Amendment can be disposed of now before we proceed to the other business which is to come before the House, we shall then— unless there is some further opportunity before 11 o'clock to-night—devote the main part of the time to-morrow to the consideration of Part I of the Act, and we shall discuss right away the suggestion that there should be this further inquiry.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Martin) has asked that there should be a further inquiry, but I can tell him this, that the industry is sick of inquiries. My experience of the Department goes back to September of last year and every one who has come to the Department and every one I have met in various parts of the country, has put the question, "what is going to happen to Part I in December"? We have made the closest and most exhaustive inquiry, and what can we do more? To whom are we to go in making further inquiries? We are expected I suppose to go to the Miners' Federation. They have already made a full, detailed, categorical statement in the Memorandum referred to yesterday. We need make no further inquiry there. There are some 840,000 men whose lives and interests are represented by that organisation. But they can tell us nothing more. We have gone to the Mining Association, and that body, during the last three months, has been in constant touch with its constituent associations. They have been calling their people together and every owner in the country has had the opportunity of giving his experience. Is that the inquiry for which the hon. Member asks? What inquiry can be made beyond that?
We were not satisfied even with that inquiry and we went to the wholesale coaldealers, and they gave us their opinion which I reported to the House of Commons. We went to the exporters and here may I say that I do not depreciate the part of the exporters. I think that they are playing an essential part in the economy of the industry, and I think they must have a voice in this matter. I think their voice must be taken in association with what is said elsewhere. Certainly the producer must be the one who is first concerned, but I do not propose to shut out the exporter from his proper contribution to the decision. We have gone to them and received their report. I made a journey to the North-East and they did me the honour of meeting me and we went into this question closely, hour after hour, discussing this whole position. We also went to the retail merchants. We had representations from the big public utility associations. It is true that they are strongly opposed to the continuation of Part I of the Act. I hope I made that clear yesterday. The big
utility associations of this country think that there is a danger in the continuation of Part I and they represent a great consuming interest.
Further, there is another factor which the Committee I am sure will weigh very carefully. During the operation of the Act there has been in existence machinery by which those who consider that they have any ground for complaint can go to a committee of investigation. There is a National Committee of Investigation and district committees of investigation and the humblest consumer or the largest utility organisation, or any association or any individual, has the right to go to the appropriate committee impartially constituted and including representatives of all the interests. Those committees have had practically no work to do.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What about the public authorities?

Mr. FOOT: I can only say that they have had the same right as the individual consumers. If in the operation of Part I it was considered that there had been any injustice to a public authority that authority could have gone to a committee of investigation. I only suggest that as further evidence of the inquiry which has taken place. A further specific question was put to me as to whether there was to be any amending Bill this Session. The statement has been made here that a new Mines Bill was contemplated in the Autumn Session. I was not aware that there was any new Mines Bill contemplated in the Autumn Session until I read it in this newspaper extract which I have here, and I feel very much amazed at what I have read in the newspapers during the progress of the discussion upon this Bill.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is there any foundation for that statement?

Mr. FOOT: The foundation, perhaps is in what I said on the Second Reading, which was that at least 20 necessary Amendments of Part I have been suggested to us. I have not time to go through them but there are many directions in which Amendments have been suggested. Most of these Amendments we believe can be done within the four corners of the existing Act but it is possible that when those Amendments
come to be finally considered it will be found that there are some which are considered necessary by the Government, but yet are not possible within the four corners of the Act. If such Amendment is considered necessary by the Government, new legislation will be required and we should certainly not shrink from new legislation if there was some form of amendment which was necessary for the more effective establishment of Part I. That is the only ground that there can be for any suggestion of the kind. I am anxious that no hon. Member who is interested in this matter should be excluded from the discussion upon it and my suggestion is that if we could get on to the broad issue raised by one of the later Amendments, it would be for the convenience of the Committee, and that this Amendment should be withdrawn. If that were done I would defer the answer which I intended to make upon the question raised by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In considering this question, will the hon. Gentleman remember the exporters and also the producers?

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Charles Williams.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS rose—

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Martin.

Mr. MARTIN: In view of the statement we have just heard—

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Sir Dennis, did I not hear you call my name?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but I corrected it before the hon. Member began to speak.

Mr. MARTIN: In view of the statement of the Secretary for Mines and also the fact that we have had a much wider discussion than we ever hoped to get on this Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8 further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL
[MONEY] BILL (By Order).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they leave out the provision of money for the demolition of Waterloo Bridge and the erection of a new bridge contained in Part I, Item 6 (a), of the First Schedule to the Bill.
If hon. Members will turn to the Schedule, they will find that a sum of £54,000 is required during the year ending 31st March, 1933, and the sum of £41,000 for the half-year ending 31st September of the same year, for the demolition of Waterloo Bridge and the erection of a new bridge in its place. I feel that a great weight of responsibility rests upon myself and my friends who are supporting this Instruction lest, by reason of our failure adequately to present our case, London should be deprived irreparably of one of its most beautiful possessions and one of its most illustrious memorials. I would ask the House to remember that anything affecting Waterloo Bridge is a matter of special concern to this House. Waterloo Bridge received its title by an. Act of this House passed in the year 1816, which laid down that the new bridge, which was then nearing completion, was to be called "The Waterloo Bridge," and was to be a national memorial of the Battle of Waterloo for all time.
It is a curious thing that a bridge which was commenced by a number of private individuals under a private Act of Parliament should have been selected as a war memorial, but both country and Parliament, as the bridge neared completion, were struck by its extraordinary beauty and magnificence; and if hon. Members will refer to the history books of the day, they will find that it was the unanimous desire both of the nation and of Parliament that the bridge should be accepted by Parliament and the nation as the national memorial of the Battle of Waterloo. [Interruption.] I do not think this is any laughing matter or a cause for laughter from the Labour Benches. It was a matter of great solemnity at the time, quite as solemn as the Cenotaph is to us, and it is not a laughing matter at all.
I think the House should be seized of the history of the bridge when considering the removal of this great national monument. The bridge was formally opened on the 18th June, 1817, by the Prince Regent, accompanied by all the Royal Dukes, while the Duke of Wellington came over specially from France, where the British Army still was, with the whole of his staff, in order to attend the opening of the bridge. May I quote to the House from the Preamble of the Act passed by this House in 1816— 56 Geo. III (1816), Cap. 63—just one sentence which will show that it is a bridge of special concern to this House and to the people of this country? The Preamble reads:
Whereas the said Bridge when completed will be a Work of great Stability and Magnificence, and such Works are adapted to transmit to Posterity the Remembrance of great and glorious Achievements: And whereas it is desired that a Designation shall be given to the said Bridge which shall be a lasting Record of the brilliant and decisive Victory achieved by His Majesty's Forces, in conjunction with those of his Allies, on the 18th day of June, 1815: Be it therefore enacted, That from and after the passing of this Act the said Bridge shall be called and denominated the Waterloo Bridge.
It is therefore indisputable that Waterloo Bridge is a great national monument and was regarded at the time with much the same feelings as we regard the Cenotaph to-day. Notwithstanding this, it is sometimes suggested that the fate of Waterloo Bridge is a matter which is no concern of Parliament, and that it is a matter only for the local authority, in this case the London County Council, which is the bridges authority for London. I have been told that the dignity of the London County Council would be offended were Parliament again to intervene on behalf of Waterloo Bridge. May I say at the outset that I yield to no one in my admiration for the great work which has been done and is to-day being done for London by the London County Council. The London County Council is, I think, the greatest, the most enlightened, and the most progressive municipality in the world. I also sympathise with their very natural irritation at the unavoidable delays which have occurred in this matter. But, admitting all that, I respectfully submit to the House that this is not a case where Parliament can divest itself of responsibility.
In the first place, the taxpayers of the country as a whole have to bear more than half the cost of the proposed demolition and the erection of a new bridge. In the second place, Parliament, apart from its statutory connection with, and its historical responsibility for Waterloo Bridge, which I have already indicated, is essentially the guardian and protector of all our national memorials. Suppose, for example, it was suggested by the City of London that in order to relieve the ever-increasing congestion of Cheap-side, it was necessary to run a by-pass road into Ludgate Hill by pulling down the north transept of St. Paul's Cathedral. Is it conceivable that such a course of action would be permitted by Parliament? Yet I submit that Waterloo Bridge is certainly a comparable national monument to St. Paul's Cathedral. Its unsurpassed beauty as a bridge, the symmetry of its proportions, and the wonderful skill of its adaptation to its environment, bound up as it is with Somerset House and St. Paul's Cathedral, are matters of world-wide recognition. Canova described Waterloo Bridge as
the noblest building in the world,
and he added in his description of it that
to see Waterloo Bridge alone was worth coming all the way from Rome to London.
As we look at this Bill to-night, the House might well exclaim with Wordsworth:
Is there no nook of English ground secure from rash assault?
It was said to me in this House a few days ago, "Why did no one realise or speak of the wonderful beauty of Waterloo Bridge until its centre arch began to sink?" [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member says "Hear, hear!" but that is not true. Many people, especially foreigners coming to this country, spoke of the beauty of Waterloo Bridge again and again, but even had it been true, even had no one spoken of the beauty of Waterloo Bridge, are there not thousands of beautiful and wonderful things of which we are not vocally appreciative until suddenly we find that there is a danger of their loss or destruction? What more wonderful thing is there than the power of lifting the human arm, and yet are any of us conscious of the wonder of the mechanism
by which we do that until we meet with some injury or disablement?
But certainly, speaking for myself, I would not to-night be submitting this Motion, in these days of financial difficulty, with cuts in salaries, with grinding war taxation, and with urgent need for further reductions in expenditure, if I thought that this great national memorial could only be retained at heavy cost to the State and to the municipality. Fortunately, however, in this case economy, aesthetics, and national pride go hand in hand. The bridge can be underpinned and restored, and made the strongest bridge in London, as recommended by the Royal Commission, at just half the cost that would be incurred were it to be pulled down and a new bridge erected in its place. In December, 1925, may I recall to the House, when the London County Council Bridges Committee first had the question of Waterloo Bridge before them, it was not then considered possible to underpin and repair the existing bridge, and I would ask the attention of the House to a paragraph in the report of the London County Council Bridges Committee of the 10th December, 1925, as follows:
If it had been possible to maintain by any means the existing structure, we think the council might well have been willing to sacrifice a valuable traffic improvement to the preservation of so beautiful and famous a bridge.
I am sure that none of those supporting the Instruction to-night could put the case more feelingly or better than that paragraph from the Bridges Committee Report. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume), whom I am glad to see opposite, when supporting a similar proposal in this House on the 18th May, 1926, quoting from a speech of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who had said that there was certainly a fifty-fifty opinion that the bridge could be reconstructed, made this remark:
Could a responsible body like the London County Council, playing with the ratepayers' money, take a fifty-fifty chance.
Later on, in the next sentence almost, he said:
I have heard no suggestion here that if this is to be a national monument, if this House will control things, there is any money coming from the nation to rebuild the bridge. The money has to come out of
the pockets of the London ratepayers."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1926; col. 245, Vol. 196.]
Fortunately since then it has been definitely and unquestionably ascertained on irrefutable authority that the bridge can be underpinned and the deformed arches reconditioned if it is so desired. Further, it is understood that the Ministry of Transport are prepared to make more than a fifty-fifty contribution towards the cost of rebuilding and reconditioning the bridge if that is decided on. The Royal Commission, having made the fullest inquiries, definitely recommended that the existing bridge should not be demolished. They considered that the footways on either side should be corbelled out so as to provide four lines of traffic in place of the existing three lines. May I read from Clause 90 of their report?
We are satisfied that it would be practicable to make the necessary modification of the upper course of Rennie's design without impairing the general effect and beauty of the bridge, as seen with its neighbours, or its harmonious relation to Somerset House and St. Paul's Cathedral.
This is also the opinion of the London Society and all the other great national bodies which have protested against the destruction of Waterloo Bridge. May I quote, with regard to the strength of the bridge, a paragraph of a letter which I received yesterday from Mr. Dalrymple-Hay? He is probably the greatest sub-aqueous engineer in the world. For 30 years he has been consulting engineer to the London Underground, and he built the tube on either side of the Charing Cross Railway Bridge. He is an unquestionable authority. He wrote to me under date 30th May:
Dear Sir William Davison, I would like to assure you that after my over thirty years' experience in carrying out a number of sub-aqueous works in different parts of the country, I am of opinion that the bridge can be underpinned and restored with perfect safety and in such a manner that it will be stronger than ever before, and the work could be done at moderate cost.
I hope that that is sufficient to meet the suggestion that has been made that the bridge cannot be restored: indeed, the Royal Commission, from their own independent inquiry, came to a like conclusion. The suggestion that if we corbelled out the bridge to four lines of traffic it would be no longer Rennie's bridge is disposed of by the photographs which were circulated to Members this
morning by the London Society. On the one side you have the bridge as it appeared before the arches sank, and on the other side, exactly drawn to scale, is the corbelled out bridge, that is to say, the balustrade is pushed further from the centre of the road 3 feet 6 inches on each side exactly as London Bridge was treated some years ago. No one would know that any alteration had occurred. Plans and models of the bridge with this widening effected have been prepared. Large numbers of people have seen them and have come to the conclusion that no material alteration is made in the lines of Rennie's bridge. I submit that I have proved my contention that the existing bridge can be repaired and reconditioned to take four lines of traffic, thereby practically doubling its present capacity of three lines of traffic which is very little better than two lines.
We now come to what, in my opinion, is the vital matter on which the House has to make up its mind. That is the question of cost. Day after day the Government are taxed from all quarters of the House as to how they are going to cut down expenditure, and the House and the country have insisted upon the Government actually breaking contracts in order to reduce expenditure which the country cannot bear. In circumstances like these, is it conceivable, when we can repair by underpinning and making strong a great national monument of this kind that we should incur an expenditure of anything between two and three times the cost of that work? With regard to the cost of underpinning the bridge, some of the figures in the London County Council memorandum are rather misleading. For instance, they give the figure of £988,000 as the cost of the necessary work of restoring the bridge to a sound condition without providing for any widening. I was unable to understand how that figure was arrived at because it is different from the figure which I will give to the House. I was told a few minutes ago that this figure was arrived at by a proposal some years ago to take down Waterloo Bridge stone by stone, store it somewhere, bring it back, and re-erect it. That is the way, I am informed, in which the figure of £988,000 was arrived at.
I will give some actual figures, which are what the House wants. The House
wants facts, and I will give them. The whole of Waterloo Bridge can be underpinned as it is at present and made perfectly safe without any of the deformed arches being dealt with. It is not necessary for the stability of the structure to rebuild the arches at all. It can be underpinned. [Interruption.] I am not an engineer, but I have sifted the brains of engineers, and I have made up my mind as to the rights and wrongs of the case. Waterloo Bridge can be underpinned as it is at present as a perfectly sound structure so that traffic can go backwards and forwards as before. As a matter of fact, if the balustrade at the top were made level, you would not notice very much the sinking of the two central arches. One of the great bridges of Paris was thus treated 60 or 70 years ago. They did not push it up, but altered the balustrade on the top, and not one person in a hundred will notice that a subsidence has occurred. The proposal which I am suggesting, however, is to rebuild the two deformed arches so that they shall be as they were originally.
The cost of underpinning the bridge and making it secure and one of the strongest bridges in London is £356,400. That is not a mere guess. It is a figure for which Messrs. Mowlem and Co., perhaps the greatest bridge contractors in the world, are prepared to undertake the work. The second item is the cost of rebuilding the two deformed arches, and Messrs. Mowlem are prepared to undertake that for £150,000. The other item is a sum, which we consider an outside figure, of £150,000 for widening and corbelling out for the fourth line of traffic. These three items come to £656,400, and for that sum we can have an underpinned and reconditioned bridge which will provide four lines of traffic for all reasonable time. With regard to the only item for which we have not a definite estimate, namely, the £150,000 for corbelling out, I can only say that London Bridge for a similar operation cost £90,000. Professor Unwin, in his letter to the "Times" of 22nd February this year, estimated it at £100,000. We have therefore £50,000 with which to play in doing that work.
Compared with this total, we have the estimate of the London County Council of £1,300,000. They put down £1,295,000, but the Minister of Transport, in reply
to a question of mine, said that we might take it as £1,300,000. That is for pulling down the bridge and building a new one. Therefore, by reconditioning the present bridge the ratepayers and taxpayers would be saved, even on the estimate submitted by the London County Council, no less than £643,600. I ask hon. Members: Are they going to throw away £643,600 when they can get a bridge, as shown by the London Society, of the same beauty as the present bridge, which will take double the present capacity of that bridge? I have secured the opinion of great experts like Mr. Dalrymple-Hay and Mr. William Muir-head, who was in charge of the Vauxhall Bridge demolition and rebuilding, and has a thorough knowledge of all the difficulties that are occasioned by work of this character. The cost of the new bridge as given by the County Council's Improvements Committee is £1,020,000. The cost of pulling down and removing the existing bridge is therefore the difference between this figure and £1,300,000, that is to say, only £280,000. I am advised that this is an inadequate figure, and that the cost of taking down and removing the existing bridge would certainly not be less than £500,000 and would take at least 4½ years to do.
8.0 p.m.
I ask hon. Members to realise this. Waterloo Bridge is considered to be the strongest bridge in the world. It contains 100,000 tons of granite and other material. Every one of the great piers upon which it rests bears no less than 10,000 tons of granite. Each of these great teeth would have to be extracted from the maw of Father Thames. All this granite would have to be removed. Surely hon. Members must see the magnitude of a work of this kind and that Mr. Dalrymple-Hay and Mr. William Muirhead are not outside their book when they say that it is impossible to do it at the sum mentioned by the committee of the County Council. As I said, time is an urgent consideration. Once they have got this bridge away we shall be left with a' temporary bridge, and a further 4½ years will be required to build the new Waterloo Bridge, nine years in all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am advised it will take nine years. [Interruption.] I will accept seven years, if you like. All
that time we shall be dependent on the temporary bridge, with two lines of traffic, one going south and the other north. I do not think the House would care to accept that possibility. With regard to the temporary bridge, let me quote two sentences from a letter I received from Mr. William Muirhead, who acted for the contractors for Vauxhall Bridge. It is dated 29th April, 1932, and is as follows:
Dear Sir William Davison,
I think there is one point which should be emphasised which hitherto has been lost sight of or not observed, namely, that the present temporary bridge alongside the old bridge at Waterloo was put up in its present design and position for the purpose of reconditioning the old bridge, and not in contemplation of the bridge being taken down and a new one being built in its place with different lengths of spans. The supports of the temporary bridge are in the same stream line as the piers of the existing bridge, and if the existing bridge were entirely cleared away and the temporary bridge left it is doubtful if the temporary bridge would be stable by itself without considerable reconstruction, but in any case the piers on which it stands would obstruct the navigation in a serious manner if any attempt were made to erect a five span bridge as proposed by the London County Council.
That is expert evidence which deserves to be seriously considered. In the circumstances I have indicated, it would seem to be absolutely necessary for a second temporary bridge to be built, and this would cost a further £300,000 to £400,000. There are several other items which would be needed with which I will not detain the House now, but they can take it from me that other items would be required. The best engineering opinion of the day is definite on the point that the estimate of the London County Council would be substantially exceeded, and that the cost would be some £2,000,000 instead of £1,300,000.
The London County Council have asked Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, that most distinguished architect, to prepare plans for a new bridge. I am quite certain that he can build a splendid bridge for £2,000,000, but that bridge will not be Waterloo Bridge, it will not be the bridge which Parliament named "The Waterloo Bridge," the cenotaph of 1815; nor, however skilful the architect, or however great, can any new bridge so well harmonise with its surroundings as does Rennie's masterpiece. In-
stead, therefore, of retaining the existing bridge, underpinned and reconditioned, for £656,400, the country and the municipality will undoubtedly have to find a sum of no less than £2,000,000, and probably more, an excess expenditure of £1,343,000. In these days of financial difficulty can we afford this extra cost? I submit that we cannot justify that expenditure in these times.
Personally, I should like to leave my case there. If I were submitting it de novo I should leave it there, because I submit with all humility that I have proved my case that in times of financial difficulty the House has no right to spend £2,000,000 when it can get all that is needed, and on definite estimates, for a little over £600,000; but I feel compelled to deal with the argument submitted by the London County Council. As I understand it the argument is as follows: Admitted that Waterloo Bridge can be repaired and reconditioned for four lines of traffic, yet, looking to the future, that will be inadequate. A few nights ago this was said to me by the very distinguished leader of the London County Council, who is now the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray): "We should have been content to repair Waterloo Bridge if we could have relied on a road bridge being built at Charing Cross in the near future, but it is impossible to contemplate that for years to come, owing to the vast expenditure necessary, and we must have a new bridge to take six lines of traffic in place of Waterloo Bridge. The extra cost is therefore worth while."
I think that is a fair, short statement of the case of the London County Council. In reply, we submit that six lines of traffic are not required for Waterloo Bridge. Firstly, it would make the already great congestion in the Strand unendurable. Secondly, I submit that it is possible at no distant date to have a road bridge at Charing Cross for an expenditure of only a few thousand pounds more than would be needed to pull down Waterloo Bridge and build a new one in its place. I say that a Waterloo Bridge with six lines of traffic is not required, and will not be required for many years to come, and even if it were agreed that further traffic facilities must be provided at that point the reconditioned bridge will furnish them. There will be four lines of traffic in the place of
three—which, as I said, are equivalent really to only two—and so the present capacity of the bridge will be practically doubled.
Further, I urge the consideration that was put forward so eloquently by Lord Crawford in another place when he pointed out that we must differentiate between bridge traffic and ordinary street traffic—that four lines of bridge traffic are certainly equivalent to eight or may be 10 lines of street traffic, because in the case of a bridge there are no shops and no warehouses, no drains to pick up and repair and no cross-roads bring intersecting traffic, but there is a continuous flow this way and that, which is only interrupted by the exit and the inflow at each end. If we were to have six lines of traffic poured into the Strand at that point, surely there would be confusion worse confounded, no matter what roundabouts would be provided. The original proposal of the London County Council for six lines of traffic was put forward because they intended that two lines of traffic were to be reserved for trams; they have now abandoned the idea of trams across the bridge, but they still retain what, without offence, I would call the obsession, what I would also say is an unreasonable obsession, about six lines of traffic. Let me quote what the Royal Commission say with regard to the traffic in the Strand. In Paragraph 83 of their Report they say:
As stated above the latest decision of the London County Council in June, 1926, was that the bridge should be rebuilt with sufficient width to take six lines of traffic. We do not think that it is cither necessary or desirable that a bridge of such dimensions should be erected at this spot. It could not be fully utilised unless the streets on both sides, and particularly on the northern side, were greatly altered. Otherwise, the bringing of more traffic over the bridge would only intensify the congestion at the Strand. A very large expenditure of money on street improvements would be required in order to make such a bridge meet the demand of through-London traffic, and this demand could be far better satisfied by a new bridge at Charing Cross.
I trust the House will agree with the opinion of the Royal Commission; other traffic experts are of the same opinion. The place where we really want traffic facilities is Charing Cross. As to that, I must also read Clauses 121 and 122 from the report of the Royal Commission:
So long ago as 1854 the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Metropolitan Bridges was impressed with the necessity of providing a road bridge in the immediate neighbourhood of Charing Cross. It regarded the evidence in favour of this project as conclusive …. Since then over 70 years have elapsed but nothing has been done….. The evidence which has been submitted to us from numerous and influential sources in favour of a new roadway crossing the river at this point is of the strongest character. It has been urged upon us that Charing Cross is where relief is most wanted—that 'everything turns and hinges upon Charing Cross'—that it is of the first importance among new bridges, and that viewing the bridge problem as a whole it would probably be the most economical project to adopt.
In the last paragraph they say:
Apart from the weighty evidence which we have received in favour of a bridge at Charing Cross we are ourselves convinced that in the interests of traffic a new road bridge at this point is essential.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): And the House of Commons threw it out.

Sir W. DAVISON: I understand it was thrown out on grounds of economy and town planning, but whatever the grounds are do not let us stand on a punctilio. This is a new House of Commons. For goodness' sake do not let it be said that some Parliament in the past did this or that. Surely to goodness this House of Commons can make up its own mind on this matter. I have great respect for the Secretary of State for the Dominions, but his interruption on this occasion was not as happy as it has sometimes been. I can see that the House is getting restive at the very mention of a bridge at Charing Cross, because hon. Members have got it into their minds that it would mean an expenditure of £14,000,000, £15,000,000 or £16,000,000.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think the hon. Member is entitled to refer to the possibilities of an alternative bridge at Charing Cross as a reason for moving his Instruction, but I do not think he is entitled to go into details.

Sir W. DAVISON: Very well, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; I have only this to say about it. My point is that the County Council are not willing to proceed with
the repair of Waterloo Bridge because there is now no hope of a bridge at Charing Cross, and it is suggested that there is no hope because it would cost £15,000,000. I was going to prove to the House that a bridge can be built there for a little over £2,000,000, and I should have thought that point was material to the endeavour we are making to save Waterloo Bridge; but I will cut the details down as much as possible. If the House will refer to the Parliamentary Estimate of expenditure deposited by the London County Council in Parliament in the Session 1929-30 they will find it amounts altogether to £14,660,000, but of that sum no less than £11,126,000 was for pulling down Charing Cross Station, pulling down Charing Cross Bridge, pulling down Coutts' Bank and doing a thousand and one other things and £20,000 was for tramways, and that the actual cost of the bridge itself was only £1,141,000. I suggest to the House that a new bridge could be put up immediately on the down stream side of the railway bridge, on the site of the Northern Hampstead Tube, which would be transferred further east, and the tube itself would be used for bringing the materials for the erection of this bridge by the mining-compressed-air method. Detailed estimates have been prepared by Mr. Dalrymple-Hay, and the total cost is £2,080,000. The sum of £180,000 is provided for diverting the tube railway, £450,000 for dealing with approaches from the Strand, and £250,000 for approaches on the south side of the river. If further traffic facilities are required for the future surely it is better to spend £2,080,000 on a road bridge at Charing Cross as the Royal Commission recommended rather than £1,300,000, or, more probably, £2,000,000 upon a new Waterloo Bridge. I therefore submit, that on traffic and financial grounds alone the House should pass this Instruction. If afterwards it is found that we have more money to spend it will be better to spend that money on a bridge at Charing Cross where it is agreed by all parties that a bridge is urgently needed.
I hope the House will forgive me for trespassing so long on its time and patience. There is just one other thing I would like to say in conclusion. The House of Commons has been des-
cribed as the best stage for the statement of a case that exists anywhere in the world, but to-night I wish that stage could be the screen of a cinema so that I might bring before hon. Members Waterloo Bridge itself to plead in person at the Bar of the House against the sentence of death that has been pronounced upon it by this Bill. If hon. Members could look on that screen they would see a noble picture. In the foreground they would see Waterloo Bridge designed by Rennie; in the middle distance they would see Somerset House, and in the background looming up against the sky they would see the mighty dome of St. Paul's, surely the noblest group in historic stone possessed by any capital in the world. Were that possible I feel sure that the decision of the House to-night would not be in doubt. I want hon. Members to forget my feeble pleading. I beg them to think of the picture on the screen. I beg them to think of Waterloo Bridge as one of our great national possessions which are fast disappearing and cannot be replaced. Think of Waterloo Bridge as a war memorial comparable to the Cenotaph, named by Parliament, opened by the Head of the State, a memorial to a bygone generation of Britons who in their day saved the world and this country from a tyranny, and if any still hesitate as to their verdict, I ask them to remember the urgency of our financial needs and the heavy cost in money and in sentiment which the destruction of this great national monument will involve.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend has covered the ground so fully and completely that, in the absence of any ammunition from the other side, it is extremely hard to say anything further. I can give hon. Members no better advice than that of going down the embankment of the river as far as Waterloo Bridge in order that they may see this historic monument. I am sure if they would do so many hon. Members would think twice before deciding to condemn what is admitted to be on all hands one of the most beautiful bridges in the whole world. I want to emphasise the point that there is good evidence for believing that the existing bridge can be made good for all time at a cost of £656,000. I need not go over
the figures again, but I know that the bridge could be made safe for a much smaller sum than that.
It can be made strong, and lasting with accommodation for four lines of traffic at a cost of £656,000, and for that statement we have a firm estimate, made by a firm enjoying as high a reputation as any firm in the whole world. That firm states definitely that Waterloo Bridge can be preserved for all time and made capable of dealing with existing traffic needs at the cost of £656,000, and that is a saving of £600,000 as compared with the cost of a new bridge. There are good grounds for believing that the estimate for the building of the new bridge is an under-estimate, and that a larger sum would be required. In the estimate for the new bridge no account has been taken of the cost of strengthening the temporary bridge which would be necessary while the new bridge was being built. There are very good grounds for believing that the cost of demolishing the old bridge has been greatly under-estimated, and no allowance has been made for the removal of the coffer dams. Just as when you are pruning a tree you cannot sit on the outside of the branches and cut away from the inside so you cannot use the structure of the bridge for removing the piers. The cost of removing the piers would be very great. The temporary bridge would not be available for the extremely difficult work of removing the piers from the river. There are therefore very good grounds for believing that the estimate of £1,300,000 for removing the bridge is an under-estimate.
Members of the House will all, unfortunately, be aware of cases in which estimates have been very substantially exceeded. The Tower Bridge cost £80,000 more than the estimate; Westminster Bridge cost £160,000 more than the estimate; the Oswald Street Bridge, in Glasgow, cost £100,000 more than the estimate; while in the recent case of the Mersey Tunnel it is estimated—and it is only an estimate—that before the work is completed it will probably have cost £2,000,000 more than the original estimate. We are safe in saying that the saving to be effected by repairing the existing Waterloo Bridge will be at least £600,000, and that in all probability the saving will be very much greater.
It is that question of economy which primarily interests me. I should not be
ashamed, given the present condition of affairs, to stand here and defend the retention or the creation of an uglier bridge if thereby a saving of £600,000 could be effected; but we have at stake, not only the saving of this very substantial sum of money, but the retention of a priceless national monument which we can never replace, and which is, in the strictest sense of the word, a national possession under the charge of this House.
Since the last election we have all been talking a great deal about economy, and here at last is a real chance of doing something. I think there is creeping over the business and commercial community a feeling of something approaching despair. At a moment of great elation the National Government was returned, but now we have the spectacle of a Government commanding an unprecedented majority in this House, and yet apparently unable to control or cut down expenditure, and, as I have said, there is a feeling of something approaching despair. I believe that we should do a good deal to hearten up the taxpaying public if we showed them that we are not prepared to spend a single farthing of their money unnecessarily.
We have now a chance to make an economy. Economy usually means something very unpleasant indeed, and the economies which we must carry out if we are to keep out of Carey Street for another year will all, or nearly all, be extremely unpleasant; they will involve real sacrifices. Here we have an almost unique chance of saving—[An HON. MEMBER: "Vicariously!"] The hon. Member says, "Vicariously," but I am speaking for myself, and the sacrifices which I contemplate will, as far as I am concerned, certainly not be vicarious, and I am not a Labour leader. As I have said, severe sacrifices will undoubtedly be entailed by the economies which are necessary to keep this country financially sound. Here is a real chance of effecting a substantial economy, and of doing at the same time something which I believe every one of us desires to do.
My hon. Friend remarked that he would like to hear some further information from those who are supporting the scheme to destroy the bridge. I think we may be fairly certain that among the
arguments advanced will be the argument that, in the long run, to expend this sum-of £1,300,000 for a new bridge will prove to be an economy. In answer to that argument I would ask hon. Members to cast their minds back for a little while, and think whether, in the whole course of their Parliamentary career, they have ever heard of a proposal entailing expenditure which has not been recommended as true economy in the long run. Every single one of the items which go to make the colossal burden that we have to carry to-day has been recommended in its time as true economy in the long run. It has been said of them all that, though they would cost a certain amount of money, they would, in the long run, save the rates and so on. It has always been urged that expenditure is true economy because it will save money in the long run, and it is as a result of that attitude of mind that we are to-day very near to Carey Street. I feel that true economy in this case, as in others, is to keep your money in your pocket while you can. If we refrain, as we can, from spending an unnecessary sum of £600,000, we shall have saved that amount and shall not have to spend it in the future.
8.30 p.m.
I want also to emphasise the point that it has not been fully realised that the superstructure of the bridge itself has not failed. As a piece of engineering work to-day it is perfectly sound, and is capable of carrying 30 times the weight that it is ever likely to be called upon to carry. All that has happened has been that, owing to alterations in the bed of the river through the carrying out of works a little higher up, the scour has now altered, and one of the piles has sunk, causing distortion of the arches. The bridge is a sound structure, and the proposal to underpin and strengthen it is perfectly feasible.
I want also to emphasise the point, which has already been made, that six lines of traffic are really unnecessary. The causes of delays in street traffic, with the exception of very occasional cases of mechanical breakdown, consist practically entirely in the fact that there are shops or buildings of one kind or another alongside the traffic. The chief cause of traffic delay is the constant holding up of vehicles for pedestrians to cross and
for traffic from side streets to come in. None of these factors operates on a bridge, and it is, therefore, a fact that a bridge carrying four lines of traffic can serve sweets carrying nominally a very much larger amount.
It is said that we must avoid bottlenecks. I advised hon. Members just now to go and look at Waterloo Bridge, and, if any of them do so, they may possibly, on coming back, need to engage in the interesting exercise to which my hon. Friend referred, of lifting their arm, and they will find that, if the capacity of their receptacle is limited, a bottle-neck is by no means an evil, but is in fact almost essential. What governs the capacity of these bridges is not the capacity of the bridge itself, but the capacity of the receptacle into which it debouches. Hon. Members would find it extremely hard to help themselves with economy and efficiency from a bottle which had no neck, so long as the capacity of their receptacle was limited, and, in the same manner, to provide a bridge with an unnecessarily wide carrying capacity is merely to add to the congestion of the surrounding streets.
I believe that we have made out a sound case. It has been shown that the bridge can be repaired for a sum of £656,000. It has been shown that there are good grounds for believing that the construction of a new bridge would cost at least £600,000 more than that, and the probability is that the saving would be much greater. I think it has been shown that there is. no real necessity for making a larger bridge than one carrying four streams of traffic. I think it is also the fact that the long delay which the construction of a new bridge would entail— much longer than the underpinning process of repairing the existing bridge— would produce serious consequences, since prolonged traffic stoppages would be entailed by making the traffic at Waterloo Bridge dependent on the existing structure, which will only carry two lines of traffic at a speed of five miles an hour. For all these reasons, I commend this Instruction to the House. I believe that, by passing it, we should strike a real blow for economy, should encourage the sorely-pressed taxpayers and ratepayers, and should do what the vast majority of informed opinion in this
country desires, namely, save a priceless national memorial.

Sir GEORGE HUME: I should like at once to say, in taking this matter up on behalf of the London County Council, that we have shared with the other side the sentiment which has been expressed of, shall I say, grief at this monument of the past having to be dealt with. But, after listening to the speeches that have been delivered, I think I shall not be wasting my time if I ask the House to come down for a few minutes to hard facts. Memory is short, and it might be as well to run through the stages through which the London County Council has had to travel since this problem first burst upon us in December, 1923, when the first report was given that a couple of the piers were giving way. Early in 1924 it was necessary to shore up two of these piers to prevent collapse of the bridge, and it was closed to vehicular traffic from May, 1924, until July of the same year. In April, 1924, the Improvements Committee of the London County Council reported that they had been advised that, in view of the type of construction of the foundations of the bridge, the settlement that was taking place could only be interpreted as a warning that the effective life of the foundations was coming to an end.
In 1923 and 1924 the London County Council were advised by Sir George Humphreys, who was then their Chief Engineer—and they called in at the same time Sir Basil Mott and Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice, who for many years had been their Chief Engineer, and was well acquainted with the bridges and their special dangers— that the most practicable and satisfactory way of dealing with the subject would be to rebuild it on new foundations. The practicability of preserving the existing bridge by a process of underpinning was fully considered. They were unanimously opposed to such a course. Of course, they did not tell us it could not be done. No engineer will say that to any proposition. They said it would involve an immense cost. In April, 1924, the county council decided to reconstruct and widen while preserving the character and identity of the existing structure. Those very anxieties which have been expressed here to-day operated on the other side of the river as well.
The council hesitated very greatly even in the face of such reports as they had. A special committee was appointed in July, 1924, to inquire into the whole question of the adequacy, etc., of existing bridges and the necessity for any additional means of transit across the Thames and to formulate a general policy on the subject. At the same time I remember that we approached the City in the hope that the City would co-operate with us so that not only might we deal with the bridges controlled by the council but that the City bridges might be taken into consideration at the same time. The Resolution of 8th April was rescinded in July, 1924, and the whole matter was referred to a special committee. In December, 1924, the county council—this shows the anxiety that they had—though they had three distinguished engineers advising them, asked the council of the Institute of Civil Engineers whether, having regard to the then condition of the bridge, at would be practicable and reasonable to underpin all or some of the piers so as to render the structure permanently safe and to enable it to be restored to its original form. In January, 1925, a letter was received from the Institute of Civil Engineers stating that they were of opinion that the county council had followed the best possible course in consulting two engineers of acknowledged eminence in this branch of engineering, that it was observed that these engineers had reported unfavourably as to underpinning, and that in their view the council would be well advised to act on the considered individual opinion of these consultants.
I think at that time the council had taken every precaution in the matter that they possibly could. To-day we are told that a lot of other eminent engineers are giving all sorts of contrary opinions and are actually giving estimates of the cost of carrying out this work and contractors are informing the world at large that they will come in, and carry out the work for so much. It is a very different thing, when you have your responsible engineers who are consulted and who have every opportunity of seeing the drawings and who have been spending years on this work, to have figures like that thrown across the Floor of the House without any power to cross-examine those who
produce them. In June, 1925, there was a report urging the preservation of Waterloo Bridge. The whole matter was reviewed by the council and the alternative courses open to them were carefully examined, and in December the Improvements Committee was instructed to take steps forthwith for the reconstruction of not more than five arches over the river of a width sufficient to take six lines of vehicular traffic. We have come now to the scheme before the House.
In May, 1926, we had the Second Reading of the London County Council (Money) Bill, on which the whole matter was discussed. At that time the opposition took a somewhat different line. In spite of what I said just now, it was suggested that the county council had not considered the matter sufficiently and were hurrying too much, it being forgotten that the matter had been in hand for two years, but the House allowed the Money Bill to go through without Amendment. Shortly afterwards, in view of the natural anxiety of those who love beautiful things—I do not complain of it—the Government were induced to set up a Royal Commission, and the council resolved, naturally, to defer action for rebuilding the bridge on two understandings: (a) that the proposed Royal Commission would issue its report within a reasonable period, and (b) that the council retained full liberty in the event of an emergency to deal with the bridge as they thought fit. In November, 1926, the Royal Commission reported, and the county council decided to give effect to its recommendations on the basis of a contribution by the Government of 75 per cent. of the actual ascertained expenditure thereon from time to time, provided that the necessary steps were taken to construct a bridge and approaches at Charing Cross in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Government. It was a long time after that before the scheme was actually agreed to. In 1929–30 the council promoted the London County Council (Charing Cross Bridge) Bill in co-operation with the Government, but it was rejected by a Select Committee.
In June, 1930, instead of the County Council sulking or having its dignity hurt as has been suggested here, they said, "We have had all this criticism from all sorts of learned bodies. Let us
get them round a table so that we can consult together and see if unitedly we cannot get some scheme." We had representatives on that body from the Royal Academy, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Institution of Civil Engineers and other representative bodies, and the chairman of it was a respected and competent Member of this House, Sir Leslie Scott. This special committee was asked to submit to the Council an agreed scheme for a road bridge and approaches to Charing Cross. Waterloo Bridge was to be repaired as best it could if we could not get another bridge at Charing Cross. Having considered the reports of that committee, the Council decided again to promote legislation on lines generally similar to those put forward under the 1930 Bill and on the same conditions.
In October, 1931, we were informed that it was not possible then to renew the offer of a 75 per cent. grant from the Road Fund towards the cost of a new bridge at Charing Cross. We do not complain. Expenditure of that kind today possibly is not justified. But there it is. We proceeded immediately to consult with the Ministry of Transport and, by a letter dated 20th January, 1932, the Ministry intimated that, if the County Council decided that the only satisfactory course was to build a bridge for six lines of traffic, the Government would not feel justified in intervening and any grant from the Road Fund for such a scheme would have to be limited to 60 per cent., the normal rate of grant for the reconstruction of a Class I bridge, and would be subject to an assurance that the Council would appoint in connection with the scheme an architect of high standing and repute. We have carried out that undertaking, because I do not think that we could have a better architect than Sir Giles Gilbert Scott. In the face of all that, of the past history, and of present conditions, what more could a responsible body do than that which the London County Council have done?
We have had all sorts of objections raised. There was the question that we are mistaken as regards our view of the traffic problem in London. It is not our view. We are not a traffic authority. The Ministry of Transport, I happen to know, have been closely advised by the
Advisory Committee which is at its disposal and which is considering especially problems of traffic. I think the Advisory Committee was satisfied that it was necessary or desirable to have six lines of traffic at that point. A great deal was said about the bridges. I am going to leave it to somebody else to speak of the traffic problem, but I would point out that there is considerable difficulty in approaching the bridge. The Noble Marquess the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) rather fancies bottle-necks, apparently, but I do not know that traffic generally does. As a matter of fact, we are advised that there would be no difficulty whatever in carrying over the traffic, and, if necessary, the roadway can be carried through into the Strand. [An HON. MEMBER: "At what cost?"] At no very great cost. That is what we are advised.
I would say a word or two about economy. I cannot understand how it can be suggested that it is more economical to spend £750,000 to repair a bridge, if we get a life of something like 20 years, as compared with spending one and a third millions in putting up a completely new bridge to meet what we think will be the needs of London well within the next 20 years, and to put it up to stand for 100 years. An expenditure of that kind would be far more economical. If you look at the secondary effects, the congestion of the streets of London and the consequent loss incurred, and if you have to consider that in 20 years' time you will have to stop traffic, it would be better not to take two bites of the cherry, but to go straight forward now and face the difficulty which we have to meet.
An hon. and gallant Friend has produced certain photographs. Can you tell anything from a photograph as regards effect? Is not the whole effect one of atmosphere and surroundings? When such a distinguished architect as Sir Edwin Lutyens, in a report which he has given, states that an alteration of that kind will distinctly spoil the effect of Waterloo Bridge, it should give us cause to reflect. Anyone who has visited Venice will agree that it was one of the most melancholy things to see that city, with such a glorious past and so full of history and splendid monuments, stagnating as it did some years ago. I believe that it is waking up again to-day.
Art is a great thing, but our forefathers never hesitated—take Oxford and Cambridge—to pull down old buildings if they found that it was necessary for the needs of the collegiate life, and they put up in their places monuments of which we are proud to-day.
We have been reminded that Waterloo Bridge is a national monument. It was not started as a national monument, it was adopted. Waterloo was an immense event, but we have travelled far beyond it. We are not living in a city which is stagnating, but in a big city, which is a county, throbbing with life, and expanding. We believe that it has a great future before it. We believe that we can also build monuments, and that we have greater monuments even than that of Waterloo. I would not think of lessening the greatness of Waterloo. We had Ypres, and we might put up another bridge and call it the Ypres Bridge to commemorate the time when the whole soul of the British nation was seen at its best on the strongholds and mud heaps of Flanders. I hope that the Motion will not be passed.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I was very much relieved when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) referred to the necessity in questions of this sort for a few hard facts. We really need to face this problem with facts and not with vague figures as to the amount for which a contractor will do an un-named work. I understand from a letter to-day that an offer of £700,000 was quoted. That has gone down £50,000 during the afternoon, but it was £700,000 this morning, and it was to be all that was necessary. I do not think that anybody here who has ever had to do with placing contracts would do 60 simply on the basis that they should include all that is necessary without saying anything about the nature of the work to be carried out. A feeling has been imported into this discussion, which, I am sure, the House would not wish to have as the basis of a settlement of this great question. I notice in a letter in the "Times" this morning, signed by Sir Reginald Blomfield, that the object of this Debate to-night is
to rescue the London County Council, itself from an act of desperate and unpardonable vandalism.
I suggest that this matter requires calm consideration and a few really accurate and solid facts. Personally, I think the division of this House and the public outside into two classes, one of which is determined at all costs to destroy the Bill, and the other of which is determined at all costs to save it, irrespective of any other considerations, is unfair and does not properly represent the division of opinion in this House or outside. There is no such division of opinion. I have never met among supporters of the London County Council and their proposals anyone who wished to destroy this very fine historic monument. Quite the contrary. The whole history of this question in the London County Council in the last few years has been one of a desperate effort to save the historic bridge. Those who like myself feel it incumbent upon themselves to support the proposal of the London County Council are entitled to resent this method of approach to such an important matter. Personally, I have looked upon Waterloo Bridge from my windows for nearly 20 years, and, if it has to be removed, I shall regret it very much indeed. I have never shared the view of my neighbour, Mr. George Bernard Shaw, that it is
merely eight or nine canal bridges set end to end.
The fact remains that for nine years a dispute has gone on between two parties, one the London County Council, expressly charged by Parliament with the responsibility for the bridges of London and the other a fluctuating and ever changing body of artists, architects, engineers and contractors who, however great their eminence and sincere their views, are largely self-appointed. For nine years the arguments regarding Waterloo Bridge have continued and during all that time the fine old structure, its centre arches shored up and blocked with rough timber supports, has stood there a public eyesore, eloquent in its decrepitude as to what happens to an unfortunate patient when the doctors disagree. If I might be allowed to carry the simile a little further, I would say that only one set of doctors were officially called in by those who were the legal guardians of the patient, but the others felt that they were absolutely necessary and forced their way in.
It would be helpful if we put behind us the quarrels of the past and deal with the position as it is to-day, following the recent decision of the London County Council. What is the real issue? Shortly it is this. The House is being asked to decide whether Parliament, having expressly charged the London County Council with the responsibility for the bridges of London, is prepared to take away from the London County Council the necessary authority to enable them to discharge that duty. That is the issue. That is the plain fact. I should like to explain the position of the Government in the matter. In the early part of this year the chairman of the Improvements Committee of the London County Council informed me that his committee, after a further and complete review of the position of Waterloo Bridge, were proposing to advise the London County Council to remove the existing structure and to replace it with a new bridge designed to accommodate six lines of traffic.
9.0 p.m.
He further stated that he would be glad to know what, in that event, would be the attitude which the Government would feel inclined to take up. Bearing in mind the close and cordial co-operation which has always existed between the Government and that great authority across the river, I felt that the question was not unreasonable. I transmitted the query to my colleagues in the Government and as the result I referred back to the London County Council certain questions which had arisen from our discussions and which might affect the fate of the bridge. After receiving the replies of the county council on this point the Government took a decision and authorised me to convey that decision to the London County Council. It was to the effect that if the county council itself decided that there was no alternative, in view of all the circumstances of the case, but that the old bridge should be demolished and a new one erected in its place, the Government would not intervene or obstruct such proposal. I will read the actual terms of the letter. It is addressed to Sir Percy Simmons, Chairman of the Improvement Committee of the London County Council:
In view of the terms of the report with which you furnished me on Monday last, stating the reasons why the London County
Council do not regard the scheme known as the Temple Bridge as a feasible one, I confirm the intimation which I gave you on Thursday, the 14th inst. as to the Government's attitude in the matter of Waterloo Bridge. This, you will remember, was to the effect that if, in the exercise of their discretion as the responsible highway and improvement authority, the London County Council decide that the only satisfactory course is to build a new bridge to take six lines of traffic, the Government will not feel justified in intervening. Any grant from the Road Fund to such a scheme would have to be limited to 60 per cent., the normal rate of grant to reconstruction of a Class I bridge, and would be subject to the assurance that the council would appoint in connection with the scheme an architect of high standing and repute.

Lord BALNIEL: Is there any limit in that letter to the amount of money which this House may be called upon to find?

Mr. PYBUS: I shall deal with the financial situation later, but I would say that it is always understood that a grant given out of the Road Fund is a percentage of the approved cost, the approved cost being known before the work starts.

Mr. BRACKEN: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but this is a very important financial point, and he touched upon it himself. Does he approve the estimate for £1,300,000 as the total cost of rebuilding Waterloo Bridge and pulling down the present structure? Has he any figures to support the London County Council figures on that point?

Mr. PYBUS: The final and official estimate for this six line bridge has been recently examined and has been submitted by the county council. That estimate we shall investigate and when the moment comes to give our decision as to whether or not we consider it reasonable, we shall say so, but it must be clearly understood that in the case of a great body like the London County Council, with experts of their own and experts specially briefed for this purpose, we should naturally rely on them that the estimate given was fair and could be achieved. I have finished reading the letter which I was authorised to send to the London County Council, but I should like to refer to the paragraph in that letter which concerns the grant of 60 per cent. Hon. Members will remember that the words were:
Any grant from the Road Fund, etc.
It is only fair to the House to state quite definitely the nature of the Government's commitment. This commitment is limited in so far as there can be no question of implementing the financial guarantee to a scheme to which the House has declared itself opposed. That, of course, would be quite impossible. If therefore the Instruction were carried no commitment already made would arise, and in such a situation the Government would have to reconsider their decision.
Now I come to the proposals which are before us. Let us assume that there are two—one the proposal set out by the London County Council and which has been clearly described in notes and diagrams. This scheme is obviously, the result of very careful preparation by a great local authority. The other proposal is that the existing bridge should be reconstructed and widened to take four lines of traffic. One trouble in assessing the alternative proposal for the reconstruction of the existing bridge with four lines of traffic is that the House is not in possession of any well-ordered and set out statement as to its actual cost. It is very difficult to assess properly the value of a proposal, which I am anxious to treat with the respect it deserves, unless it is accompanied by a certain amount of detailed estimating and proper drawings and designs.
In considering these two proposals, let us first look at the proposal for the reconstruction of the existing bridge, corbelling out its surface so as to make it suitable for four lines of traffic, which I understand is the scheme supported by Sir Reginald Blomfield. Hearing that there was a drawing depicting this corbelling out of 3 feet 9 inches on either side in the Royal Academy, I took an opportunity of going and looking at it—it was also reproduced in the "Times" newspaper— and I was extremely gratified to notice what a small effect, apparently, looking at the picture, a corbelling out of 3 feet 9 inches made in the appearance of the bridge. It was quite pleasant. Then I inquired whether there was in existence a large scale model of the bridge as widened and as corbelled out, and I found that the London County Council had one and that it was possible to inspect it. When I inspected the actual model, which
showed the effect of the corbelling out, I am bound to say that it was by no means so pleasing to my untutored eyes as the drawing published in the Press. Bnt we might, I think, take another opinion about this corbelling out of the old bridge and see what Sir Edwin Lutyens said in a report on this very subject. He was asked to give his opinion as to the effect from an artistic point of view of corbelling out the bridge, and this is what he said:
I have been unable to arrive at any satisfactory design whereby the bridge can be widened out by corbelling out the parapets or any similar method of addition.
And he went on to say:
To overhang footways would altogether destroy the architectural character of Rennie's bridge. It would completely mutilate the character of the original design, and would create in fact not only a new bridge but an ugly one.
These divergent views from the aesthetic point of view might easily go on for ever. I can see no end to them, and if agreement is so difficult to get on the artistic side is it possible on the more mundane and financial side to get some agreement between the advisors of those who are opposing the London County Council? I will take only four of these unofficial advisors who have stepped forward to help those who are opposing the London County Council with their advice and assistance. I have always heard that those who are advising the opposers of the London County Council are not only architects but engineers, contractors and artists; so that their advice is of a very comprehensive nature. Let me take four of them and see what advice they offer as to the line we should take in regard to the real problem of the work which is proposed in the widening of the bridge and its reconstruction. First let me take the case of a distinguished engineer, or architect, or both, Sir Owen Williams. He has made public a definite statement that under his scheme the old bridge could be removed and a new one designed for six lines of traffic and erected for a total cost of £690,000.
Next I come to the opinion of Mr. Muirhead, to whom the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has referred as a respectable contractor. Mr. Muirhead is, as he said, an important contractor. He declares that the cost of removing the old bridge
alone would be no loss than £550,000, so that if you take the advice of Sir Owen Williams and compare it with the advice of Mr. Muirhead, and assume for a few moments that both are right, the conclusion to which you are driven is that by the time you have removed the old bridge only £140,000 will be left to build the new bridge, that is if both these gentlemen are correct. Now I come to two conspicuous leaders in this opposition to the London County Council—Sir Reginald Blomfield and Mr. D. S. MacColl, and as their opinions as expressed in the Press seem to vary from day to day may I, to use a topical expression, "take the latest news from the course," and quote from two letters which appear from these gentlemen in this morning's "Times"? Mr. MacColl boldly declares that the bridge could be underpinned at a cost no greater than that of pulling it down.
The most careful estimate drawn up by the London County Council, based on a scheme which has been tried out and as to the method by which the bridge will be demolished, shows that the cost of demolishing the existing bridge will be £275,000. If the cost according to Mr. MacColl of underpinning the new bridge is that of pulling down the old bridge, that is, £275,000, it sizes up very badly with the figure quoted by the hon. Member for South Kensington of £550,000. But if we turn to the estimate given this morning in the "Times" by Sir Reginald Blomfield we find that he says "it is possible to do all that is wanted"—at this moment I am not aware whether that means the scheme of underpinning or reconstructing or widening or corbelling out or what—at a cost of £700,000.
I have taken four of the advisers on whom those who are opposing the County Council's scheme have obviously relied. You can pick where you like, but as a business man I am driven to say that personally I cannot make anything of this irreconcilable jumble of figures. If one of them is right then the others are wildly wrong. It is, perhaps, a little fortunate that they may never be called upon to turn their estimates into actual work and to be held responsible for the real cost when the work is over. Let me give the House some figures which have been given to me as regards
the cost of these various works which we have had before us. The official cost of demolishing the old bridge and replacing it by a new one for six lines of traffic is stated at £1,295,000. This figure, given by the London County Council and its advisers, contains, I understand, 10 per cent. for contingencies. The estimate bears every evidence of being carefully thought out and accurately made. But the nearest estimate which we can get under the sort of terms and specifications which the London County Council would require, is that the cost of reconditioning and widening the existing bridge to take four lines of traffic would be no less than £1,081,000. That is the figure given by the London County Council. It is widely different from the figure given from the benches behind me.

Sir W. DAVISON: On what is that figure based? The contractor's estimate contains full particulars and specification. My figure is more likely to be the accurate one.

Mr. PYBUS: The hon. Gentleman asked me on what this estimate is based. The estimate is the estimate of the London County Council, who are yearly and daily and hourly in touch with the bridge and all its conditions, and I frankly feel that we are entitled to accept the estimate.

Sir W. DAVISON rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has already addressed the House at great. length and he should not constantly interrupt.

Mr. PYBUS: I would like to say a few words about the dangerous condition of the bridge. No one who has inspected it, as I have done, and as the engineers are continually doing, would endeavour to belittle the danger of a collapse of the bridge. I understand that for seven or eight years a staff has been engaged night and day watching the state of the bridge. The London County Council alone has expended £7,000 per annum on that account. The bridge is definitely in a very bad state indeed. As most hon. Members will know, the bridge is hollow, with an internal structure of brick. As one creeps along between these brick walls it is quite easy to push a steel feeler straight
through the masonry where cracks coincide, as they do in many places. The carriage-way is supported by brick material, which was all that was available in Rennie's time. It means that there is a very heavy weight to be carried on the piers and arches.
There can be no question whatever that the bridge needs immediate tackling; no amount of argument can postpone the fact that the bridge will have to be repaired or replaced, and at once. It is imperative that something be done. I hope that, whatever happens as a result of to-night's Debate, we shall at any rate see to it that work on this bridge, or work on its demolition, is not delayed any further. It is a very important matter that there should be over the Thames at this point a bridge capable of dealing with the traffic properly and efficiently. It is important that the bridge which is to be built to-day should be built not only for to-day but for the generations which are to come. It is absurd to forget that, whilst it is always possible to increase the width of the approaches to the bridge, yet increasing the width of a bridge itself is a terribly costly and difficult proceeding, as we see from the example of the present Waterloo Bridge. The recommendation of the Royal Commission that "Waterloo Bridge should be a four-line bridge, was always a corollary to the proposal for the construction of a new six-line bridge at Charing Cross without unnecessary delay. Personally I deplore the rejection of the Charing Cross Bridge by committee of this House, for statistics show that the volume of traffic in central London is ever increasing. I understand that the hon. Member for South Kensington also now thinks that it was a great mistake to reject the proposals for the Charing Cross Bridge, but I notice that in the Division on the Charing Cross Bridge Bill, when the Second Reading was taken on 19th February, 1930, the name of Sir William Davison appears amongst those who supported the rejection of the Bill.
I would like now to get quickly to the question of economy, which is of crucial importance in these days. No one wishes to evade it. The policy of the National Government with regard to every possible economy has been firmly applied to roads and bridges. In co-operation with local
authorities the Ministry of Transport, since the National Government took office, have reduced the commitments on road and bridge works by suspending schemes to the extent of £40,000,000, and the amount available for urgent and important works under the Road Fund is very small indeed. But it may be in the minds of those who are considering the point of economy that if the new Waterloo Bridge was not proceeded with, the result would be an economy of 60 per, cent. of its cost, or £780,000, and that this saving would pass into the Exchequer. That is not the case. The list of really urgent work which must be proceeded with at the earliest possible moment is very large. What would be the result of refusing to allow the six-line bridge scheme to proceed? The London County Council estimates show that the difference between reconstructing the existing bridge, £1,081,000, and the cost of the new bridge, £1,295,000, is £214,000, so that the net effect of proceeding with the work of reconstruction of the bridge for four lines of traffic would be to release for use on other schemes not £780,000, but 60 per cent. of £214,000, which is £128,400.
In our opinion, there is no work so critically urgent and upon which it is so absolutely necessary to proceed with at once as Waterloo Bridge. I hope now that the House will understand that the net effect of adopting the plan of widening Waterloo Bridge, from the financial point of view, would be to render available for the next most urgent schemes on our priority list the sum of £128,400. I hope that, as a result of the case which has been put by those who represent the London County Council, the House will agree that the council, with their close and intimate daily knowledge of this bridge and of its problems, charged by Parliament with the responsibility for its maintenance, is a great and responsible body conscientiously endeavouring to discharge a great duty. It is surely not possible for Parliament, having charged the London County Council with that responsibility, to withhold from them by intervention the necessary authority to carry it out. Therefore, I cannot believe that this proposal of the London County Council will be defeated at the instance of a body of opinion which, however eminent, is unofficial in character, and, obviously, gravely divergent in its views.

Lord BALNIEL: I have very much sympathy with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) when he tells us that in this matter the London County Council have had a very difficult time. It may be true that in the past this House has not helped the county council. I believe that the county council are doing all they can to come to a proper solution of this problem, but I cannot help feeling that what they have proposed will only intensify the difficulties, will cost much more money and will make the traffic problem incomparably worse than it is to-day. The hon. Member gave us a history of all the negotiations, and I cannot help fearing that there is an attitude that, as we have been harried for years with this problem of the London County Council's bridges, we should finish with it. If this House were to decide this matter in such an atmosphere of defeatism and boredom because no one has any more interest in it, then the House will be failing in its great responsibility. The Minister of Transport seemed not to be answering any of the points made in the Debate, but to be criticising a series of letters which appeared to-day in the "Times." They were letters from people who may be expert in these matters, but for whom we hold no responsibility, and who are at liberty, as far as we are concerned, to cancel out in the "Times" their respective views. The two hon. Members have asked us to get down to hard facts, but neither of them did so. Neither of them answered the points raised in the Debate, and neither of them told us what advantage we were going to get for this expenditure which we are asked to make.
9.30 p.m.
Surely, when everyone has admitted that we have in the combination of Waterloo Bridge, Somerset House and St. Paul's Cathedral a group of river architecture incomparably superior to any similar group in any capital in the world, we are at least entitled to say that we must have overwhelming reasons given to us before we submit to that group being destroyed. What overwhelming reasons have been produced in the speeches to which we have listened? No reasons have been produced and, until they are produced, I feel very reluctant to support the county council and the Government in the action which they propose to take.
I said "the Government" perhaps unintentionally, because I have rarely heard so lukewarm a letter of acceptance as that read out by the hon. Member. I think the phrase was that "he would not obstruct the proposal of the London County Council." In no sense is this in any way a Government Measure.
What are we to gain, and what bribe is being held out to us, in order that we should contemplate making this change in the amenities of our town? The bribe of convenience and the bribe that the traffic problem will be solved if we do this. There was no mention made of any insufficiency or difficulties with regard to traffic until the bridge was in danger. Be that as it may, we are told that this will help the traffic problem, but will it do so? Will it help us in the immediate future? Will it give us permanent help? This bridge is going to take five, six, seven or eight years, possibly more, to build. Taking the lowest figure of five years, which is possibly half the correct time, what is going to happen in those five years? We have been told that at that point London needs a six-line crossing over the river, though, in point of fact, the Royal Commission on Cross River Traffic specifically recommended that it was neither necessary nor desirable that a bridge of such dimensions should be erected at this spot. In spite of that, we are told that a six-line crossing in this part of London is necessary. What are you going to do in the next five years? If six lines are necessary, how are you going to put them on the two lines of the temporary bridge?
What will be the position below, on the water? I am no expert in this matter, and no one in this House has a right to speak as an expert, but rather as a man who can assess the rival merits of different experts and, with his experience of the world, give his opinion on their rival ideas. I am told that the destruction of the bridge is in itself a work of which the danger is not fully realised even by many engineers. I am told that it will be absolutely necessary to block up with wooden piling not only the arch which is being pulled down, but the arches on either side. Moreover, when the new bridge is being built, the piers of the existing temporary bridge will, obviously, not be in the same
position as the piers of the future bridge, because one bridge has five arches and the other has a different number. What, then, of navigation? What is going to happen while this is taking place in the next five years? It is obvious that, from the point of view of navigation, the river is going to be blocked.
That is the temporary position—two lines of traffic where it is said that six are necessary. If six are necessary, what is going to happen to the lines of traffic which cannot get across the two lines of the temporary bridge? Obviously, as was said in answer to a question in another place by the representative of the Government, it will be necessary to put this traffic round by Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges, and if we look again at the report of Lord Lee's Commission, which is the main authority on this matter, we find that they say upon this point:
Any increase would add to the already severe congestion at Northern approaches at Blackfriars and Ludgate Circus, on the one hand.
On the other question of Westminster:
We consider that the bridge ought not to be called upon to take a larger load than at present.
That is the dilemma which the county council have to face. What are they going to do? That is merely the temporary dilemma. That is the difficulty in which we are going to be placed for the next five, or seven, or eight years. But what of the future? What of the permanent position? What of the position when our bridge has been destroyed, when hundreds of thousands of pounds have been unnecessarily sunk in the river, when several years have been wasted and confusion of traffic has resulted? What is to be our permanent reward? I ask hon. Gentlemen to consider what is the position in the Strand to-day? We know from daily experience that there is scarcely a worse block in the whole of the West End. I think that in the City there are worse, but on this side of the City I know of no worse block than the permanent block at the Strand. That stagnation is created, not by swiftly flowing channels of traffic, but by the few vehicles which cross Waterloo Bridge to-day at a nominal rate of three miles an hour. Of course they go faster, but
that is the rate at which they are supposed to go when crossing the bridge.
Are you going to stop the congestion in the Strand, and help to deal with the traffic problem, by substituting for those three crawling lines of traffic, six lines of traffic moving at high speed across a great modern bridge? What an extraordinary and farcical proposition. Yet that is what we are being asked to do this evening. To increase the traffic across the bridge from three lines to six lines would inevitably mean chaos. Hon. Gentlemen who advocate this proposal seem to forget the essential fact that a bridge is only a link in a long chain of communication and unless the chain is-complete that link however good and strong in itself is quite useless. There is no object in getting traffic on to a bridge if you cannot get it off the bridge. A very interesting remark was made quite incidentally by the hon. Member for Greenwich when he mentioned the possibility of a subway. I daresay that if this proposal is carried out it will be necessary—in fact I know it will be necessary —to increase the means of access. Today, we know the outlet from Waterloo Bridge is hopeless. There is no direct outlet beyond Wellington Street. There is a small street going up by the Lyceum Theatre and Inveresk House and there is the outlet of Aldwych but the turning at the Strand cannot be improved. The outlet north can only be improved at great expense and I believe that this scheme makes a future expenditure inevitable.
If it does not increase the number of vehicles, the bridge is useless; if it does increase the number of vehicles then the result will be chaos. It is always a good thing in these cases to consider one's own experience and I happen to go over Vauxhall Bridge very frequently. The position there is exactly the same—a splendid, wide, modern bridge but no outlet. The result is that there is invariably a block on the bridge because while you can get on to the bridge you cannot get off it. I do not believe that anyone is held up on the bridge because of the bridge itself but only because the outlet is bad. My hon. Friend has pointed out in a very interesting way that a bridge is entirely different from a street and that three lines of bridge
traffic are equivalent to six lines of street traffic. The reasons he gave were that there was no taking up or setting down at shops; that there was no picking up of passengers by omnibuses; that no houses were being built on either side; that there were no turnings to right or left, and that there were no interminable burrowings in the ground in search of faulty gas or electricity mains such as we suffer from in our streets. The result is that the amount of traffic which you can put by a three line bridge into the Strand is equivalent to six lines of traffic in the street.
Unless hon. Gentlemen realise that the approaches to this bridge will have to be reconstructed at immense cost, a fact of which no mention has yet been made, they will fail to understand what we are now being asked to do will mean in the long run. It is of course the question of expense which causes one the gravest dismay. It is this question of expenditure which forms our fundamental objection to the proposal. Is there any reason to suppose that the estimate is correct? My Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) mentioned the cases of a number of bridges, including Westminster Bridge and the Tower Bridge, in which estimates have been greatly exceeded. He also pointed to the notorious case which is today crippling the finances of Liverpool— the notorious case of the Mersey Tunnel, in which an under-estimate was made because the engineer forgot that ventilation was necessary. It may have been my stupidity, but when I interrupted my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, I could not make out what his reply meant. I asked him whether there was any definite monetary limitation to the amount that we are being asked this evening to spend, and I was not clear as to whether the answer was "Yes" or "No."

Mr. PYBUS: I can make that point clear. The grant is always made available to an approved estimate. If that estimate is exceeded, there is no liability to pay a grant on such excess expenditure.

Lord BALNIEL: Then do I understand that the estimate of £1,300,000 is approved? Is that so? The hon. Gentle-
man is Minister of Transport, and we are the House of Commons, and we are being asked to spend money and we want to know how much.

Mr. PYBUS: We have found no reason at all so far to doubt or mistrust the estimate given by the London County Council, and without giving a definite decision at this moment, I have no doubt that we shall probably accept the estimate and base our grant upon it.

Lord BALNIEL: The position is, I understand, that while the Minister has great confidence in the estimate of the London County Council, he is not prepared yet to say if that exact estimate of £1,300,000 is the estimate on which we shall give our grant?

Mr. PYBUS: The figure on which a grant will be given is the figure that represents the approved estimate, and I have just stated that, so far as I can see, we shall accept the estimate of the London County Council of £1,300,000.

Lord BALNIEL: I very much hope that we can all share the optimism of my hon. Friend that £1,300,000 will be the correct figure but I do not know. We have very great responsibilities. We have grave responsibilities to the taxpayer. We, on this side of the House, were elected to prevent unnecessary expenditure of public money. Many of us have felt that we have not had the opportunities which we would like to have had to put into concrete form what we believe to be our duties and responsibilities. Many of us, further, think that grants to local authorities, however important those authorities may be—I am not saying anything against the importance of the London County Council—are among the things which must be very carefully and most rigidly scrutinised, particularly in a case like this, where we have quite definitely not been given the reasons why we are being asked to spend this money.
I do not wish to go into all the figures that my hon. Friend has given. I do not wish to repeat the alternative proposals which we desire to put before the House. Broadly speaking, however, they are that the bridge should be reconditioned and, if necessary—and I accept that it may be necessary—widened to four lines of traffic. Evidence came before the Lee Commission that the under-
pinning—and therefore making perfectly stable for as long as these things can be made stable, for the life of any bridge— was a perfectly simple engineering proposition. The widening solution was again one which was recommended by Lord Lee. I was amused by the Minister of Transport telling us that the corbel-ling-out would injure the beauty of the bridge. It seemed strange from one who a moment before was willing to destroy a masterpiece to show so great a solicitude as to whether any details of its architectural perfection should be impaired or not. I would further point out to my hon. Friend that while he quotes Sir Edwin Lutyens as saying that the beauty of the bridge would be impaired if the corbelling-out took place, yet Sir Edwin Lutyens was one of the keenest opponents of my hon. Friend's proposal to pull down the bridge. These are things which it would be well for us to remember.
We should, of course, regret corbelling-out. The bridge would no doubt not be quite so majestic as it was before. I admit that, but we have not very far to go in order to see the result of the corbelling-out of a bridge. London Bridge was built by the son of Rennie. It is not so majestic a bridge as Rennie's bridge; none the less, it is the second best bridge in London, and if you wish to see what corbelling-out can do for a bridge and how little it may affect its beauty, you have no farther to go to see it than to London Bridge. At any rate, that is the concession—the widening of the bridge—which I, for one, would be prepared to make to the supposed needs of the traffic.
I do not wish either to go into the question of the estimates. They have been mocked at and laughed at, but the fact remains that from the London County Council we have had an estimate which may or may not be correct, and that we have had an estimate prepared by Mr. Dalrymple Hay, who knows more of the under-water conditions of London than any other man in the world. He is the chief consulting engineer of the Underground Railways, and has himself been engaged in tunnelling the Thames and in keeping watch on that part of London for the benefit of his clients, the Underground Railways. Not only has that estimate been made, which would reduce the
cost enormously, by 50 per cent. at least, but that estimate has been backed by two of the biggest firms of contractors in London. My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is not doing himself justice when he suggests that the estimates of Messrs. Mowlem & Co. are not perfectly genuine estimates, and that a great firm of British engineers like that, when it says that it will do a work of that nature at that price, does not at any rate intend to do it.
In conclusion, let me say that additional advantages of our scheme are that it can be carried out far more briefly than the other, that it will cost half the price of the county council's scheme, and that it can be done without holding up the traffic on the bridge for a single day and without impeding by a single inch the navigable part of the river. That is the alternative that is offered. It is not indeed incumbent upon us to offer alternatives, and any alternatives that a layman might offer would probably come in for much criticism and much serious change. None the less, we are laymen, and we have to decide between the advice of many expert engineers; we have to decide in our own minds the obvious question, which any one of us can decide as well as the Minister of Transport, about traffic; and we have to decide for what the National Government was elected. Was it or was it not to see that every item of public expenditure was scrutinised to the last possible farthing?

Mr. THOMAS: Whatever views there may be on the merits of this Bill, there will be general agreement in congratulating the Noble Lord the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel) on a magnificent speech. When we remember the work of his father in this connection, we heartily congratulate him on the way in which he has reflected his views. My only justification for intervention is that in the late Government I was responsible for bringing the parties together to consider the Charing Cross Bridge scheme. My object then was to find employment. This was a scheme on which there were many differences of opinion, and I brought the parties together in an effort to get agreement. The Mover of this Motion to-night based his case on Charing Cross as being the means of dealing with the traffic problem, but the rejection of the Charing Cross scheme made it inevitable that the London County Council should bring for-
ward this Bill. [Interruption.] The House must judge, and we must face the facts of the situation. No one will deny that with the rejection of the Charing Cross proposal the Waterloo Bridge proposal became inevitable as a problem that must be faced. There can be no difference of opinion on that. If that be the fact, I want to put to the House that we do not gain much by bandying about the names of certain engineers or architects. Would any Member of the House, if he were faced with this problem as a business proposition, accept the bald general statement about estimates which has been given to-night? If my Noble Friend is justified in criticising the estimates of the London County Council on the ground that past experience proves that they are always exceeded, what guarantee is there that his estimate will not be exceeded?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: These are detailed and specific estimates for carrying out certain work on the existing structure. The House has never seen any plans or any estimates with regard to the London County Council scheme.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. THOMAS: I ask the House to observe that justification. The justification is that the London County Council is so incompetent, so blind to their responsibilities, that they themselves have no knowledge whatever of the cost of their scheme. Let me ask the Noble Lord this question. Is it fair in a Debate of this kind to broadcast to the world that we are careless? Do not forget that I am approaching this question on the ground of economy and saving. However serious may be our position, we do not gain anything by broadcasting that fact on an issue of this kind. No one knows better than the Noble Lord that if we were faced with an expenditure, not of £1,300,000 but £4,000,000, in the county we both represent, and he knew that it would save the disaster that has just taken place in Derby, we would not view it from the standpoint of the question of hundreds of thousands of pounds, but we would say that it would be good economy to save the disaster. In coming to their conclusion to-night, hon. Members must remember, if they are not Members for London, how very unfairly they are treating London in dealing with this question at all. How many new Members of this
House realise that when they vote they are voting on a question on which, if the expenditure were £1,500,000 or £3,000,000 and it concerned a bridge for Manchester, or Liverpool, or Newcastle, or any other town, not one of them would have a right to vote? [Interruption.] I say that if we were dealing with Hull, Manchester, Glasgow or Liverpool and the issue was the reconstruction of a bridge that the local authority had decided was essential, this House would have no voice.

Lord BALNIEL: What about the Mersey Tunnel?

Mr. THOMAS: The Noble Lord, magnificently as, I admit, he got up his case, evidently does not understand the difference. The reason that the House has an opportunity to debate and to vote on this Motion is that the London County Council by Statute is compelled every year to come to this House. That is the difference, and I would ask the House to keep that fact clearly in mind. I have listened with interest to a solution of the traffic problem from the Noble Lord, and with the greatest respect I say to him that a number of people have been engaged on it for 40 years, and anyone who sees the London traffic problem to-day views with apprehension what will be the position in four or five years time. Therefore, if you reject this proposal, having rejected the Charing Cross proposal, you must inevitably take the responsibility of saying that you will aggravate the traffic problem and not ease it. I would ask the House to consider one other aspect of the problem. Suppose the Motion be carried. Suppose the London County Council, without complaining or squirming at the action of the House, says, "We accept the verdict. What is our next course?" They then call all the parties together and say, "Let us go into this question without prejudice, without bias, and with a single-minded desire to find some other solution." That solution, unanimously agreed to, is the one presented to the House to-night, and if we rule it out are we, the House of Commons, to take over the responsibility of the London County Council in regard to this matter? [Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members saying "No." It may be they do not want to accept that responsibility, it
may be they would run away from it, but the fact remains that that would be the inevitable result of carrying this Instruction and the House ought to hesitate before accepting such a responsibility.
Let us frankly face the facts. Here is a duly elected body, chosen by the people, responsible not only for the bridges but for the traffic problem of London, presented with a report which says that this bridge is dangerous, a report signed by the most distinguished engineers in the country. What other course was open to them than to take advice on how to meet the situation? They took such advice, and that advice is embodied in this proposal, and I repeat that unless the House is prepared to take over from the London County Council a responsibility which is theirs now it must hesitate before rejecting this Measure. In addition to that I ask hon. Members from outside London, Members from Liverpool and from Doncaster, who in the last few weeks have been urging upon the Government to deal with certain phases of the internal problems of those places which the local authorities could not themselves cope with, what would be their responsibility in going into the Lobby and taking away from the elected representatives of London the power to govern their own affairs?

Sir HENRY JACKSON: Six years ago, when practically the same Motion was before the House, it was my privilege to speak as a Member of the London Traffic Advisory Committee and to express their views on that proposal from the point of view of traffic, and I propose to do the same to-night, great as is the temptation to deal with the other phases of this great problem. The value of a bridge depends primarily upon its ability to carry traffic, and, if it is across a river, not to be an impediment to the river itself. We have definitely come to the conclusion that from the point of view of the river problem alone this bridge is not only a menace but that any attempt to widen it with the existing arches would make navigation infinitely more difficult. May I address myself purely to the question of the cross-river traffic? For the last seven years I have been a member of the London Traffic Advisory Committee. We have tried to
deal with the problem of London traffic, and nothing plays a greater part in that problem than the bridges across the Thames. We have surveyed all those bridges from the Tower to Windsor. We have from time to time advised the local authorities under whose control they are, and I would like to read a few sentences from our advice regarding Waterloo Bridge:
Waterloo Bridge has failed by reason of its age and traffic stresses. It is clear that a road bridge at this point cannot be dispensed with, and also that the present temporary structure cannot be regarded as anything more than a makeshift. The bridge may be reconstructed to its present dimensions, or a new bridge providing for additional lines of traffic must be built. Having regard to the estimates of the cost and of the small additional expenditure required to provide for additional width we are driven to the conclusion, purely on traffic grounds, that a new bridge to accommodate not less than four lines of traffic should be proceeded with as soon as possible.
That is our very definite decision. Let me give a few figures to show the traffic across Waterloo Bridge and its neighbours to-day. In July of last year a census was taken of the traffic over a period of 12 hours, from 8 to 8, and the figures were: Blackfriars, 17,000 motors and horse vehicles; Waterloo, 11,000; London, 18,000; Westminster, 27,000 The fact of the matter is that Waterloo to-day is not only not taking its share of the traffic of that part of London, but, what is much more important, is adding in an increasing way to the burdens of Westminster and Blackfriars. We are very definitely of opinion that the time has come when, in this part of central London, we must increase the number of lines of traffic. The Royal Commission rightly and properly said that we need 10 lines of traffic at that point. We need a new Charing Cross Bridge with six lines, and certainly a new Waterloo with at least four. We have at the present moment Waterloo Bridge, which for all practical purposes has only two lines of traffic, and so the urgency of a new bridge with six lines of traffic is becoming more and more vital, if the building of Charing Cross is indefinitely postponed.
I will deal with one more point. What is to happen to the congestion in the Strand if by any chance we should increase the lines of traffic from, shall I say, the present two to six? One of the
advantages of having had six years respite between the last Debate and this has been that the Advisory Committee have been able to try many experiments. Some have been more or less successful and some have not been successful at all, but at least two have been outstanding successes—the introduction of one-way traffic, with its corollary of the roundabout method, and, secondly, and much more recently, the introduction of light-control signals. Fortunately we have had experience now for 18 months of a roundabout at the junction of Wellington Street and the Strand, and it provides the real answer to my Noble Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel). That roundabout has not only completely demonstrated its success, but demonstrated, what is much more important, that it is possible by means of a roundabout to deal not only with the existing traffic but with a much larger amount of traffic. We are convinced that, if there were a bridge with six lines of traffic there, the present fluidity of traffic is such that not only would congestion not happen but that the traffic would be admirably dealt with. The police report on congestion in the neighbourhood of the Strand since this experiment was tried is that it has resulted in a steady improvement in the flow of traffic, and a report from an engineer of the Ministry says:
The actual time which is now taken by an omnibus from Charing Cross Station to Waterloo Bridge, was observed to be four and a-half minutes of which two and a-quarter are taken in getting from Wellington Street on to the bridge, and the result has been that the long lines we used to have stretching from the Tivoli Cinema to the bridge itself have entirely disappeared.
We now have a steady flow along the Strand of something like 20,000 vehicles a day, plus 10,000 that come to and from the bridge, all moving harmoniously. It is true that we ask motorists, and the drivers of horse vehicles, to spend two-and-a-half minutes more in doing the longer tour, but there is now only one hold-up in the traffic between Wellington Street and the Strand, and we are confident that by that method we have the answer to our friends who ask how we can deal with the six lines of traffic over Waterloo Bridge. The result is that we have found a new method of dealing with this congestion, and we believe that this new instrument is really
effective in dealing with all bridge heads. Wherever you establish a roundabout, whether at Westminster or in Ludgate Circus or elsewhere, you have the means of dealing with the increasing amount of traffic which flows over the bridges and relieving the congestion that formerly occurred.
Finally, I think it will be admitted by all that our lighting signal experiments have been a great success, and we have been advised on all hands that we have increased the flow of traffic in Oxford Street in a remarkable manner. The metropolitan boroughs and the Ministry of Transport have recently come to an agreement by means of which the traffic light signals will be extended throughout London, and I know of no part where they would be more satisfactory than at the junction of the Strand and Wellington Street. We believe that in the combination of roundabouts and light signals we have an arrangement which will go far to solve the problem of congestion. The members of the London Traffic Advisory Committee feel, as they did six years ago, that a new bridge at Waterloo is an urgent necessity in that part of London.

Sir WILLIAM RAY: Perhaps the House will bear for a short time with another member of the London County Council. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) is the only Member who, so far, has spoken from the London County Council point of view, and perhaps it might be useful if I added a few words in support of the case which he has made out. I suppose it is very difficult for any Members of this House who read certain newspapers and attend certain learned societies to think that any member of the London County Council can really have a deep love for London. I can assure hon. Members that we do take as deep a pride in London and in London development and London beauty as any of those critics who have used harsh terms about the members of the London County Council. The only difference is that we show our love for London by service, and not by writing to the daily Press and instructing other people how they shall carry out the administration of London. I ask the House to believe that I never in my life gave two votes with greater regret than
my two votes for the destruction of Waterloo Bridge. By training, by instinct, by everything that animates one, I have a veneration for what is old and what I think is beautiful, and I never gave two votes with greater regret than the votes that I gave on those two separate occasions in 1926 and a few months ago. But those of us who are engaged in the day-by-day donkey work of the administration of the greatest city in the world have had the position forced upon us, and I want to put that point of view to the House this evening.
It was in 1925 that our first proposal came for putting up a new bridge for six lines of traffic. The present Lord President of the Council, very properly realising the difficulties of the situation, set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the cross-river traffic and the bridges of London, and we postponed all operations until that Commission had reported. The Commission reported. It is true that they recommended a four-line bridge at Waterloo, but that was conditional on a six-line bridge at Charing Cross, and, incidentally, I should like to remind the Noble Lord the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel) that the Royal Commission, in their report, after their examination of Mr. Dalrymple-Hay in the witness-box, blew sky-high the whole of the methods which he put before this House to-night with regard to under-pinning. Instead of the destruction of two piers and arches of the bridge, five arches of the bridge had to be demolished for the purpose of carrying out the work. After referring the whole matter to one of the most distinguished engineers of the day, the Royal Commission, who were not entirely favourable to the London County Council's proposals, completely demolished the case for the under-pinning of Waterloo Bridge.
We went forward; we produced our Charing Cross Bridge scheme; it was defeated by a Committee of this House. We were asked to ask leave of the House to recommit the Bill, but we had too much respect for the High Court of Parliament to think that it would be right for a local authority to come to the House and ask it to override the decision of a Select Committee appointed to deal with a Bill. We did not come to the
House with that request, but we set up a Committee composed—and I hope that hon. Members will recognise the importance of this—of the critics of the London County Council. The Royal Institute of British Architects, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Fine Arts Commission, and all the other bodies which have spent their time in criticising our proposals, were invited to form a Committee, on which only two members of the London County Council sat. The result of their proposals was embodied in the last Bill which we submitted to this House, and which was turned down for reasons of economy. What happened? Just as in the case of our first Bill, the hounds were in full cry as soon as it was presented, and the very position in which we are to-day is due solely to the people whose only interest has been in maintaining Waterloo Bridge as it now stands. It is an unfortunate situation.
There was nothing else for us to do but to resort to our original proposal, and we put it before the House on this occasion. The London County Council which passed this resolution a few months ago included 72 members who were not members of the London County Council which passed the resolution in 1925. We are fairly responsible people. The majority—in February Last, 90 odd to 23—in that body, is composed of professional men, doctors, barristers, solicitors, engineers, even architects. All types of mind are represented. It is only after the fullest consideration that a body of that type presents things of this kind to this House. We have had two elections since 1925. Not one of our critics has ever offered himself to the electors to help us with our work. Not one of them has done a stroke in the administrative government of London. They can sit in armchairs and write and criticise. Their advice, their knowledge, their technical experience would be invaluable to us in dealing with this matter, and their value would be twice as great if they were sitting on the London County Council instead of sitting at a meeting, say, of the London Society.
We have a right to expect that those who tear the work of great administrative bodies to pieces might sometimes come and take a little share in it. We have some sort of grievance which can
only be expressed by a member of the London County Council who is rather tired after spending nearly eight years on this problem, and I think right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench know full well that the whole of that eight years has been spent in trying to meet the wishes of those who have been our opponents. We have been face to face with a difficult position. I am not going to argue traffic. The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) has done that. We are satisfied that the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, the Ministry of Transport, and witnesses such as Sir Henry Maybury are worth all the amateur writers who express themselves from day to day. We are prepared to take the estimate of the distinguished engineers who are engaged by us for that specific work. I am as much entitled to take their estimates as our friends are to take the estimates of people who have not been asked to examine closely the work they have to undertake. There has in reality been no case made out against our proposal tonight except the aesthetic case, to which I am willing to pay some tribute, but I should despair of the artistic future of England if we felt in the 20th century that there was no one capable of erecting a beautiful bridge. You have no faith in your generation. That is one of the things that we should consider to-night.
10.30 p.m.
One other point. If I am entitled to express resentment, I resent being called an extravagant administrator. Hon. Members opposite and their colleages have called me far different things from that in regard to the administration of London. We pride ourselves on being economists—not lip service economists, but actual economists. If hon. Members would close their cars for a few minutes —I do not wish to lose their support— I would draw attention to the fact that this House has just cut down our grants in one year by £1,900,000, and we have saved that sum in administration. In addition to saving that, we have saved the ratepayers £250,000 by reducing the rates by a further penny. We have put away £550,000 for any contingencies which may happen because of
duties imposed upon us by this House. I submit that, having done those things, no Member in this House has a right to call us an extravagant body. The Government have passed on to us the duty of administering transitional benefit. We shall save them within the first 12 months £1,000,000 upon that service alone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I asked hon. Members opposite to close their ears. This is my reply to hon. Gentlemen who say that the London County Council has deliberately come forward with an extravagant and extraordinary scheme. I ask hon. Members to believe that a body which has an economical administrative record like ours is not one which is going to waste either the ratepayers' or the taxpayers' money in order to gratify their desires. We have applied the best of our ability to this problem. We have been balked repeatedly by those who are the friends of the maintenance of the old structure, and we are driven back to the original solution, which is the economical solution, because we will settle the problem of cross-river traffic for our generation.
I have not the time, and it would not be fair to whoever is going to reply, to develop any argument as to the south side of the river, so I will close on one note only. This House has devolved upon the local authorities serious and important duties. This House is bound to trust those authorities to do their work in the best possible way. It is bound in the days to come to devolve other important duties upon local authorities. Do not frighten off men and women who will be good public servants by reversing important decisions to which they may come. The House has a serious responsebility in this matter. It has given us within the last two years extraordinary duties in regard to public assistance and public health. It has given us extraordinary duties in regard to housing, and so on. I ask the House, Have we failed you in any respect? Have the great municipalities of this country forfeited the confidence which the House has placed in them? We give our lives to the service of a great body like that, and we give our time, day by day, week in and week out, probably to some of the most important work which is performed in this country. I ask hon. Members to believe that a body like ours does not
approach this problem from any whim or from any preconceived notion, or from vandalism and all the rest of the epithets which have been hurled about, but, within our lights, we endeavour to do our duty by the people who elect us. We endeavour to do our duty by the Parliament which imposes duties upon us. I believe that it will be a fearful blow to the administration of local government in this country if to-night a matter like this is defeated by a vote.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): We have just listened to a very urgent and eloquent appeal which, coming from the hon Member who made it, must carry great weight with this House. I am well aware of the value of the work which he has performed on the London County Council, and I am sure that we are also well aware of the important work the council performs, and of the great attention we must give to any recommendation which they may put before us. I feel certain also that while there is no Member of this House who would underrate the importance of the county council, or would willingly take any step or make any protest that would interfere with their well-developed and carefully thought out plans, or would hurt the feelings of that great body, I am equally sure that there is no member of the London County Council who would for one moment deny that this House possesses the right, and, indeed, is under the duty, of very carefully investigating any Bill brought before it, and not allowing it to be passed until the House was satisfied. This is the Imperial Parliament. Much as we value the importance of local government, much as in the future we may have to extend, as the hon. Member has suggested, the powers of local government, we must always bear the ultimate and the final responsibility, and I would suggest that in this particular matter of local government London stands in a different position from any other locality in the country. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) seemed to be appealing to electors of other constituencies not to take any part in the Division, or not to vote against the will of the people of London. He mentioned Doncaster and Liverpool and asked why should they interfere with London. While he was
speaking I was beginning to wonder why the right hon. Member for Derby had intervened in the Debate.

Mr. THOMAS: It is only fair to say that I did not make that statement. I asked hon. Members representing other constituencies when they voted to keep in mind the fact that they were voting on an issue on which if it affected their constituencies they would not have an opportunity of voting.

Mr. COOPER: The interpretation that I put upon the words of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct. Liverpool and Doncaster are in a different position from London in regard to this matter. Great and important as the City of Liverpool is, it is not, like London, the centre and heart of the country and the Empire. There are hundreds of thousands of British subjects all over the world to whom, when they think of England, the word "England" brings up in their mind a vision of the House of Commons Clock Tower, of the dome of St. Paul's Cathedral and of the bridges that lie between, and we have a responsibility towards those people in deciding matters as regards London slightly different from the way in which we would decide matters in regard to smaller localities. We all have a right and a duty to vote on this matter and we should look upon it as a national question. The local authority have decided it according to local conditions and local considerations. We should look upon it as a national matter.
What is the most urgent duty of the National Government of the present time? From all quarters of the House and from all political parties we are urged to observe economy. I am sure that every hon. Member who will be supporting the Bill to-night, and who will vote against the Instruction, would enthusiastically applaud any general Motion in favour of drastic economy. It is always the same story in regard to economy. Make a general proposition in favour of it and you will get enthusiastic support, but bring forward one single practical proposal and you are met with insuperable difficulties. The amount of money involved in this particular matter is not enormous. I am not going to give the House any further statistics,
because we have had a great many and they have been extremely conflicting. The Minister of Transport did not score a very telling point when he quoted from letters to the "Times" written by different men quite independently and from a different point of view, and then subtracted their figures and reduced the result to absurdity.
Nor do I think he was quite fair in sneering at the figures which have been produced by responsible contractors. They are figures which are worthy of consideration. He told us that the cost of underpinning the bridge and restoring it to a state in which it would be able to carry four lines of traffic would be £300,000 less than the destruction of the bridge and the building of a new one. That was the Minister of Transport's own figure. We doubt it profoundly. We think that the figure is much too low, that the difference is much greater and the saving far more, but even the saving of that small amount is surely worth while. Then is it not worth while for the Government to give some indication to local authorities of their desire for economy. The hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) told us very eloquently of the economies which the London County Council have been able to effect. We were all delighted to hear it, but that is no argument why they should now spend more money than they need to spend. Whenever we ask for economy on the part of Government Departments we are always told of the reductions in expenditure that have been made. There is not a Government Department which has not been cut to the bone, yet we anticipate asking them to make further cuts in the future. Surely our position will be strengthened rather than weakened if we insist on this one practical measure of saving to-night. We have had again the old excuse that this is a saving in the long run. Have not we all made that excuse in our own daily lives whenever we have been hesitating between buying an expensive and a cheaper car. Has it not always been pointed out that the expensive car saves money in the long run.

Mr. McGOVERN: Take an omnibus.

Mr. COOPER: I saw an advertisement the other day, "Taxis work out cheaper in the long run." Is it not the case that every tradesmen endeavours to persuade
the customer to buy the more expensive article under the impression that it Is cheaper. That argument will always be put forward to defeat any practical proposal for saving money. With regard to the traffic problem, I have not been convinced that this proposal will really assist it in any way. Those who are supporting the Bill are in favour of the alternative proposal of a new bridge at Charing Cross and reconstructing Waterloo Bridge to carry four lines of traffic. That is admittedly the ideal solution. The times have changed, and we do not know whether they are going to improve or get worse, but in any case surely we should wait and then if times improve and the country gets richer in a few years we can proceed with the ideal solution of a new bridge at Charing Cross thus really solving the traffic problem.

Sir W. RAY: Can the hon. Member assure us that such a proposal will be accepted?

Mr. COOPER: That would be the ideal solution, and meanwhile we can take a step towards the improvement of this bridge. That was partly a recommendation of the Royal Commission. Let us remember that it is also important to have economy in Royal Commissions. Governments are sometimes criticised for setting up too many. It certainly is no economy to set up a Royal Commission and take no notice of its recommendations. If we are better off in a few years time we can proceed with the ideal solution, and we shall meanwhile have taken a step in the right direction now. On the other hand, if the prophecies of gloom and disaster prove to be true, we need not worry so much about the traffic problem in London; if we are to get poorer and poorer and commerce and trade are to decay, the traffic will not increase. The traffic problem among others will then solve itself, and the present Waterloo Bridge will carry all the traffic. In these matters of deciding between two courses I am always in favour of the rather drastic course of economy or else the whole programme of expenditure. It is much better to do a thing properly and spend money or else save all the money you can and not take the middle course. I am sure that if the people of this country understood this problem they would agree with that procedure. It is signifi-
cant that the second class on the railways has practically disappeared. The explanation probably is that the Englishman either wants to spend money and have a good time or else to save as much as he can and ride rough. I strongly advise the method of rigid economy which we are proposing in the Instruction which has been moved.
With regard to the aesthetic consideration, we perhaps are not an ideal body to decide; we do not pretend to be an assembly of arbiters of elegance. But at the same time, while we are not peculiarly fitted to take a view with regard to this matter, it is our duty to take aesthetic consideraions into our minds; it is our duty to preserve the beauties of England just as much as it is to protect her liberties and maintain her laws. On this matter there are no two opinions. A great deal has been said about the different views and the different proposals of one set of people and another, but there is no one who has criticised or questioned the aesthetic beauty of the present Waterloo Bridge. I am not sure that I agreed with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) when he was deploring the stagnation of Venice. I am not sure that I do not prefer the stagnation of Venice to the pulsating life of some great modern city like Chicago. I think the hon. Member was rather unfortunate in selecting Venice, because the one thing I do remember, the one blot that very nearly marred Venice, to my mind, was the perfectly hideous iron bridge put up by the municipality for utilitarian purposes.
As to the beauty of Waterloo Bridge there are no two opinions. I do not for one moment accept the view of the hon. Member for Richmond that we do not believe there is a single architect in England capable of building a beautiful new bridge. We do not take that view in the least, and there is no reason why we should take it. The fact remains that for the last thousand years no English architect has built one like it. Those who are supporting the Bill have secured the services of a very great artist, but I am quite sure that, artist and architect as he is, he will be the last person in the world to say he is able to build as beautiful a bridge as that which
stands to-day. Perhaps he could build as good a bridge, but it would not be Waterloo Bridge as it is to-day, for that would be gone for ever. This is not a matter like a question of money, where you can undertake to repay and make good. Not even the greatest artist who has ever lived could undertake to replace Waterloo Bridge. Once it is destroyed, it is gone for ever; it can never be replaced. I was surprsied to hear the hon. Member for Richmond say that the Royal Commission had blown sky-high the proposition of underpinning the bridge. If one looks at the actual words used by the Royal Commission, one finds they say that they were impressed by the fact that in the evidence which came before them no engineering expert went so far as to assert that it was impossible to secure the stability of the bridge by underpinning, and that, whether one regarded such a solution as desirable or not, it must be regarded as a practicable engineering problem. How can anyone say after that that this proposal has been blown sky high?
The case is simply this: It has been proved that the bridge can be underpinned, and in a way to enable it to carry four lines of traffic. It has been proved that that would cost a substantially smaller sum of money than the proposal to destroy the bridge and set up a new one. It has been proved that the bridge is one of great architectural beauty and an historic monument. For all these reasons, I should have thought the House would have come to only one decision in the matter. This is not a party question, and nobody should go away with the impression that it is a question upon which the Government have taken any definite line. The Minister of Transport read a letter in which he showed how far the Government were committed. That letter informed the London County Council that if, as a result of their deliberations, they brought forward a proposal of this kind, the Government would do nothing to obstruct it. The Government have done nothing to obstruct it, and they have amply fulfilled that undertaking.
This is not a party question, but perhaps I may be forgiven if I make an appeal to-night to Members of my own party, the Conservative party. Here we
have a memorial set up 100 years ago to one of the greatest battles ever fought. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] It was solemnly dedicated to the memory of that battle, though it was not set up as a particular memorial, because our ancestors, more economical than we are, instead of spending money on war memorials, chose something which was being set up, anyhow, and dedicated it as a war memorial—a most sensible plan. It was dedicated to the memory of that battle, one of the most momentous battles in which British forces have ever engaged, and the greatest battle ever won by a British field marshal. He himself was present at the dedication of this memorial. It is acknowledged to be a work of great architectural beauty, and the last time this matter was discussed in this House we had somebody better qualified to advise us on architectural questions—the late Member for the Combined English Universities, Sir Martin Conway, who said it was held to be the finest achievement in architecture of the 19th century, not only in this country, but in any country in the world. I should have thought that when you have a great historic monument which, by extraordinarily good fortune—for we are not too rich in works of architecture—is also an architectural treasure, Members of the Conservative party would have thought that here at least was something worth conserving.
Even if great financial sacrifice were involved, I for one, would be prepared to recommend that it was worth spending money to preserve the bridge. My Noble Friend the Member for Western Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) took the opposite line and said that he would actually be prepared to recommend an ugly structure if it were cheaper. I do not share that view. I would, even in these hard times, advocate the spending of money to save this unique masterpiece, this interesting historical memorial. But the extraordinary thing in this case is that those who ask the House to save this bridge ask the House at the same time to save money. It is nearly always the other way round. One nearly always has to choose between beauty and economy, In this instance the road to beauty and the road to economy converge.
Not once or twice in our rough island-story,
Has the road to economy, been the road to architectural glory.
After the long hours which we have spent in this House going through the Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading stages of Bills, we often go away wondering whether we have achieved such important and beneficial work as we are assured we have. Same of us may wish to see material proof of the results of our labours. If this Instruction is carried those who vote for it will at least have that privilege in the future. When they are suffering from that feeling or mood of pessimism, that dejection into which some people occasionally fall, they will be able to walk out on to the Embankment and look at the bridge which will be, in part, the work of their hands, and every one of them will be like a miniature Horatius able to congratulate himself upon
How well he saved the bridge
In the brave days of old.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would not intervene were it not that I desire to say that we who sit here have made up our minds for once to support the Conservative London County Council. [An HON. MEMBER: "That has done it!"] Whether that has done it or not, we are here, anyhow, to vote on this subject as we have a right to do. As one of the oldest London residents in this House I would like to say that I think all the talk about the beauty of Waterloo Bridge in its present position next door to the ugly monstrosity of the Charing Cross Bridge is real nonsense. I wish also to say that those who are concerned about London are rather tired of the battledore and shuttlecock which has gone on in connection with this question. We have a respect for experts and artists, but we object to the convenience of Londoners being held up as it has been held up during the last two or three years. Further, we believe that if any alteration is to be made that alteration ought to be on the lines of getting rid of the railway bridge as well as giving us a real thoroughfare from north to south. We believe that for once the experts are wrong.

Sir W. DAVISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put", but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his
assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. LANSBURY: The late Mr. Harry Gosling proved in this House that it would be impossible to rehabilitate that bridge, and for those reasons and others we propose to-night to vote in favour of the London County Council.

Question put,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they leave out the provision of money for the demolition of Waterloo Bridge and the erection of a new bridge contained in Part I, Item 6 (a), of the First Schedule to the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 154.

Division No. 206.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Milne, Charles


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kant, Dover)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Atkinson, Cyril
Ganzonl, Sir John
North, Captain Edward T.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Goff, Sir Park
O'Connor, Terence James


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Goldie, Noel B.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Balniel, Lord
Gower, Sir Robert
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Pearson, William G.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Greene, William P. C.
Peat, Charles U.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Penny, Sir George


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Grimston, R. V.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hales, Harold K.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Boulton, W. W.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Harris, Sir Percy
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hartland, George A.
Ramsden, E.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rankin, Robert


Bracken, Brendan
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.


Briant, Frank
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hornby, Frank
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Horobin, Ian M.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Robinson, John Roland


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Buchan, John
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Ross, Ronald D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jennings, Roland
Ross, Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Burnett, John George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rothschild, James A. de


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Carver, Major William H.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Ker, J. Campbell
Salt, Edward W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Kimball, Lawrence
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Knebworth, Viscount
Scone, Lord


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Law, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Conant, R. J. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cook, Thomas A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cooper, A. Duff
Levy, Thomas
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)


Copeland, Ida
Liddall, Walter S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smithers, Waldron


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Soper, Richard


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Dickie, John P.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Donner, P. W.
McKeag, William
Stones, James


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
McKie, John Hamilton
Storey, Samuel


Drewe, Cedric
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Strauss, Edward A.


Duggan, Hubert John
Martin, Thomas B.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dunglass, Lord
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Thorp, Linton Theodore
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Wells, Sydney Richard
Withers, Sir John James


Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Weymouth, Viscount
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Touche, Gordon Cosmo
White, Henry Graham



Turton, Robert Hugh
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Sir William Davison and Marquess of Hartington.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graves, Marjorie
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Albery, Irving James
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moreing, Adrian C.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Munro, Patrick


Atholl, Duchess of
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Bateman, A. L.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Grundy, Thomas W.
Petherick, M


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Borodale, Viscount
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pybus, Percy John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ray, Sir William


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Rea, Walter Russell


Buchanan, George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hicks, Ernest George
Remer, John R.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hirst, George Henry
Rosbotham, S. T.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Howard, Tom Forrest
Salmon, Major Isidore


Cape, Thomas
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cassels, James Dale
Janner, Barnett
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Jenkins, Sir William
Selley, Harry R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
John, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Slater, John


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Kirkwood, David
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Clarke, Frank
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Thompson, Luke


Colman, N. C. D.
Leonard, William
Thorne, William James


Colville, John
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Curry, A. C.
Logan, David Gilbert
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Doran, Edward
McGovern, John
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Eastwood, John Francis
Magnay, Thomas
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Edwards, Charles
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Eillston, Captain George Sampson
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Elmley, Viscount
Manningham-Butler, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Womersley, Walter James


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis G.
Maxton, James
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milner, Major James
Sir Henry Jackson and Sir George Hume.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mitcheson, G. G.



Question put, and agreed to.

COAL MINES BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance of Part 1 of20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 34 and of S. 1 of 21 & 22 Geo. 5. c. 27.)

Postponed Proceeding resumed.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS (EMERGENCY CUSTOMS DUTIES) ACT, 1931.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order, dated the 27th day of May, 1932, made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 30th day of May, 1932, he approved."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Before we pass this Motion I think the, Minister of Agriculture ought to explain what it means.
We do not intend to detain the House in explaining it fully; so long as it is known that the world and the Empire are to be saved by imposing a duty of 6d. per 1b. on strawberries from the 15th to the 25th June inclusive we can allow this colossal Order to go through. We do not intend to force a Division, and, in fact, I almost feel like supporting the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: As we have had one speech, may I be permitted, in the interests of the growers, to congratulate the Government most sincerely on an Order which was very badly needed? Any action by the Government which is helpful to our growers deserves a vote of thanks, and some Member ought to show appreciation and express the great joy that the Government have not had their hands held by some of their colleagues who are reactionaries in this respect.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: May I draw attention to the fact that Scotland has not yet benefited by these Regulations, because the dates are too early for us? We have no general ripening of strawberries by those dates. Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether he can include Scotland in these privileges?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I feel that one word is necessary. We are bringing in an Order dealing with a commodity, and I think the Minister of Agriculture ought to explain it to the House. I dissent from a practice, which we do not want to grow up, of Ministers bringing in Orders
without any explanation at all. Courtesy to the House demands some explanation. It may be, as an hon. Member has said, that this will benefit growers, I am not going to discuss that point, but what I am saying is that if an Order is presented the Minister should at any rate prove to the House that it will benefit somebody. He has made out no case; simply put the Order on the Paper. That is a procedure which would never have been tolerated from any other Government, and I hope we have seen the last of it.

Captain McEWEN: May I support what the hon. Member for Midlothian (Captain Ramsay) has just said about the dates. This question has been considered for a long time, and we have never had a satisfactory answer. I urge upon the Minister to consider the question of the date.

Resolved,
That the Order, dated the 27th day of May, 1932, made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 30th day of May, 1932, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter after Eleven o'Clock.